|
Kingsbury3 posted:Did Japan commit major war crimes against China or was it to other asian countries as well like Korea? For the US they systematically targeted bomber crews, but that's not quite the same.
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:For the US they systematically targeted bomber crews, but that's not quite the same. I'm talking more like systematic village burning and ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
They never got near large groups of US civvies. I think they treated the Brits pretty bad, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Kingsbury3 posted:Did Japan commit major war crimes against China or was it to other asian countries as well like Korea? You don't see events like the Nanking Massacre in Indonesia or Inodchina. There are cases of mass killings like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sook_Ching_massacre, though these are generally targeted killings rather than mass executions like those in mainland China. In Korea, you have wide-scale impressment of the civilian population for work projects. Large numbers of Korean males are put into forced labor on the Home Islands and Japan's outlying island possessions. Many die in the subsequent fighting, for example at almost 1,000 Korea workers died at Tarawa. Similarly, many Korean women were recruited under false pretenses or forced to work as "comfort women" sex slaves. There's also cases of willful deprivation leading to widescale deaths. Japan's confiscation of rice in Vietnam is estimated to have lead to one million people starving to death. Now, why we don't see the same level of violence presence in the rest of Japan's Empire vis a vis China? This is unclear, although I'd argue racial factors and a differing conception of who the "enemy" was played a part. Europeans and Americans were seen as colonizers encroaching on Japan's rightful sphere of influence. By comparison native Indonesians, Filipinos, etc. were inferior partners in the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere," unlike the Chinese (both civilian and military) who were seen as the antagonists. ^^Allied civilians were captured by the Japanese in small numbers, primarily contractors on places like Wake Island or expats in the Malnutrition was a serious problem amongst internees and several died while imprisoned. Ken Burn's The War spends some time retelling internee experiences, if you're interested in getting some personal accounts of what it was like. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 06:42 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Kingsbury3 posted:Did Japan commit major war crimes against China or was it to other asian countries as well like Korea? Korea's a bit of a special case, it was annexed peacefully- if at gunpoint- much before Manchuria and then the mess in China. Japan's actions there represent a bit more of a 'traditional' imperialism, which was sort of interesting in its simultaneous insistence that the Koreans could with just a little proper guidance, be properly Japanese and full members of the co-prosperity sphere and a steadfast refusal to treat them as equals. I think the Chinese cases were in large brought about as a reaction to e.g. the Communist guerrilla insurrection. In which case wanton slaughter isn't ethinically motivated persay. Pretty intensely vengeful, but also at least somewhat driven by the issue of keeping a massive area and population in line.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Taiwan also falls under sort of the same category as Korea as it was ceded to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, except while Korea became nominally independent with a Japanese puppet ruler, Taiwan was outright annexed. I'm not tremendously familiar with the history of Taiwan under Japanese rule but I get the impression that they took a relatively(very much relatively) enlightened approach and there was a serious effort to assimilate the non-Aboriginal Taiwanese population into the Japanese fold proper, to the extent that tens of thousands of Taiwanese fought on the Japanese side during WW2.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
@Acebuckeye13 & Vincent Van Goatse. My gut feeling is that he doesn't come across as with the sort of dignity he in his profession should; his "style" as you will, comes across to me in a similar fashion as some small-name-big-ego "professionals" within their respected fields who've left a bad taste in my mouth. Nothing really to do with his rebuttals which I'm not really in a position to agree or disagree with, it just something about it rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:@Acebuckeye13 & Vincent Van Goatse. His "style" shouldn't be what matters, it should be the validity of his arguments. The best available historical record supports Parshall's arguments, no matter how it rubs you.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:His "style" shouldn't be what matters, it should be the validity of his arguments. The best available historical record supports Parshall's arguments, no matter how it rubs you. I said "Parshall really doesn't come across well there tbh.", which is I think a legitimate complaint about his efforts to set the record straight, because discourse between historians should be a positive experience of people exchanging notes to come to the best fitting conclusion. Quote Block Wars just strikes me as demeaning.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:His "style" shouldn't be what matters, it should be the validity of his arguments. The best available historical record supports Parshall's arguments, no matter how it rubs you. Its not like its physics or a hard science. Style matters.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Its not like its physics or a hard science. Style matters. History is a science. Style means gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
Mans posted:History is a science. Style means gently caress all. I dunno if they have courses on scienceography though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
Mans posted:History is a science. Style means gently caress all. I'll always remember reading The Historians Toolbox and it's "Neither art, nor science, history is a craft"-thing 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Mans posted:History is a science. Style means gently caress all. History is more than a series of things that happened. To say it's a science is an oversimplification.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
History is based on a scientific approach to historic events, using various approaches, methods and tools to "dig" for the possible explanation for past events. The style of writing doesn't matter at all to the quality of an historical publication. It might make it more aesthetically pleasing or make it easier to read but what matters is what it is based on. A pretty worded book with faulty research behind it is not an history book, even if such books are more popular than actual well researched books.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Mans posted:History is based on a scientific approach to historic events, using various approaches, methods and tools to "dig" for the possible explanation for past events. The style of writing doesn't matter at all to the quality of an historical publication. It might make it more aesthetically pleasing or make it easier to read but what matters is what it is based on. A pretty worded book with faulty research behind it is not an history book, even if such books are more popular than actual well researched books. Facts and a 'scientific approach' can only get you so far. The reality is, a ton of history is about trying to get into the heads of the participants. However scientific you want to be, when you start asking questions like 'why did he do this', or start addressing events where all that is known is the subjective accounts of biased, fallible sources, your idea of history would ultimately be based on your most unscientific senses of how human beings might behave and how trustworthy a particular person is. Style and the personality of the investigator does matter, because the records we have of the past are not in general 'measurements', and from back to Herodotus basically no history ever has been written without a determined intention to push a personal narrative. 'Well researched' is horribly ill defined.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Anthropology, sociology and psychology are important things to study the past with. How does that make you defend history is not a scientific study? You don't study history by simply reading Herodotus or Tucidites and saying "welp that's a wrap". It's much more deeper than that.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Mans posted:Anthropology, sociology and psychology are important things to study the past with. How does that make you defend history is not a scientific study? I'm saying the opposite! My point is that the human side matters. You can't say, oh Herodotus is well researched, his style of writing doesn't matter. There are scientific aspects to history, but there's much more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
What do you define by human side? Herodotus is kind of the opposite really, he made well written books with bad research
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I said "Parshall really doesn't come across well there tbh.", which is I think a legitimate complaint about his efforts to set the record straight, because discourse between historians should be a positive experience of people exchanging notes to come to the best fitting conclusion. Quote Block Wars just strikes me as demeaning. The problem is that Bennett isn't a historian-As Parshall mentions at the beginning of the article, Bennett is a screenwriter with a direct personal investment in the legacy of Mitsuo Fuchida, and is trying to discredit Parshall so that he can sell a movie script. Parshall in the article is arguing for proper historical dialogue, as opposed to the old Hollywood method of "Use the sources that tell the story you like, discard the rest." Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 17:33 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Barely-trained conscripts handling their weapons wrong? How unrealistic! I don't know where people get the idea that professional soldiers don't screw this up too. Stop by GiP and ask how many people have seen a dude pop off a round into the clearing barrel, or try to count the number of holes in the ceiling of any military range cover. Godholio fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I don't know where people get the idea that professional soldiers don't screw this up too. Stop by GiP and ask how many people have seen a dude pop off a round into the clearing barrel, or try to count the number of holes in the ceiling of any military range cover. Well, to be fair some Soviet recruits in WWII only fired a handful of rounds or dry fired their weapons that they shared with other recruits before deploying, so it certainly happens. Probably an over-played trope nonetheless, though. edit: Whoops, think I read that wrong. I'll leave this here for Soviet craziness, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
brakeless posted:It's not like there's a lot of options with a ppsh. Holding it between the drum and the trigger looks like it'd feel like rear end, and the barrel shroud will burn your fingers off in a short order. Indeed, is there a reason there's no Thompson-like hand guard under the barrel? Suomi doesn't have one either. I once got my hands on a deactivated Suomi and was actually a bit confused how one would actually fire it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Ambulocetus posted:Indeed, is there a reason there's no Thompson-like hand guard under the barrel? Suomi doesn't have one either. I once got my hands on a deactivated Suomi and was actually a bit confused how one would actually fire it. We got to play around with some what I assume were WWII-era PPShs in Afghanistan forever ago. The Afghans actually showed us how to do it: you either 1) held it behind the drum (most common), 2) held the bottom of the drum, or 3) propped the bottom of the barrel on something (this was preferred). I thought that holding the bottom of the drum was pretty easy, the thing has almost no recoil and by holding it down there you can really control the muzzle very well. They were also pretty fond of fashioning wooden handles extending down from the shroud, this made them feel exactly like an M4. I don't know if the Red Army ever did this. Also I'm not sure how robust the Soviet magazines were but on the weapons we were playing with the drum magazine was probably the most robust piece of gun that I've ever run into. You couldn't damage the thing even if you wanted to. bewbies fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
I was taught to hold it by the magazine. Getting the magazine in there in the first place is a colossal pain in the rear end, and once it's in, it's in there pretty solid. You can hold it by the bottom of the drum just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Any recommendations for books about Verdun? Also, anything else good about the French experience in WWI? When it comes to military history, I tend to prefer those that include a lot of social and oral history. Something like Martin Middlebrook's "The First Day on the Somme" would be great. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
hotgreenpeas posted:Any recommendations for books about Verdun? Also, anything else good about the French experience in WWI? When it comes to military history, I tend to prefer those that include a lot of social and oral history. Something like Martin Middlebrook's "The First Day on the Somme" would be great. Thanks! Alistair Horne's The Price Of Glory. He examines both the larger strategic context of the battle but also discusses lots of smaller tactical engagements and the experiences of individual groups of men, single soldiers and generals.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
I don't fully understand the reasons for Napoleon to invade Egypt. While the strategy of trying to block English access to India seems solid i don't understand how controlling Egypt would do that and simply not be a massive strain on the weak French Navy.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Mans posted:I don't fully understand the reasons for Napoleon to invade Egypt. While the strategy of trying to block English access to India seems solid i don't understand how controlling Egypt would do that and simply not be a massive strain on the weak French Navy. Food maybe? France was the largest country by population around that time. Making sure his army is fed sound legitimate to me.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Mans posted:I don't fully understand the reasons for Napoleon to invade Egypt. While the strategy of trying to block English access to India seems solid i don't understand how controlling Egypt would do that and simply not be a massive strain on the weak French Navy. The basic idea was to deny the British access to overland routes across the Sinai. Before the canal, trade went overland from Suez to wherever and then across the Mediterranean. If they cut this off everyone who wasn't friendly with the French would have to take everything from India around Africa. The long-term strategic goal was to use the area as the staging base for a substantial operation against British India.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Korea's a bit of a special case, it was annexed peacefully- if at gunpoint- much before Manchuria and then the mess in China. Japan's actions there represent a bit more of a 'traditional' imperialism, which was sort of interesting in its simultaneous insistence that the Koreans could with just a little proper guidance, be properly Japanese and full members of the co-prosperity sphere and a steadfast refusal to treat them as equals. You make some great points about the differing nature of imperialism on the peninsula vs. the mainland. In Korea, Japan got so far just by wearing Western suits and portraying themselves as the "good Orientals". It really is amazing to look back on. They did an amazing job of playing the West. Hitting all the right notes about civilization, modernization, sanitation, law and order etc to get away with plunder and rape on a continental scale. F.A Mckenzie's "Korea's Fight For Freedom" is one of my favourite primary sources for the period. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13368 Basically he writes about travelling Korea post WWI and meeting guerrillas who are fighting with guns that were out of date in the Boer War while villages are getting torched and the women being raped. All the while he is being dogged by Japanese agents and basically the only thing keeping him alive is being a WASP. The tone of the book is "holy poo poo America is this what you call civilization?????" But guess what? To find the roots of Japan's colonial experiment in Asia we need to go back at least several hundred years and that means it's time for.....The Black Water Dragon Part VI. The next episode - "The Black Water Dragon VI" - of my podcast on The First Great Asian War just hit the feed. quote:1592 comes to a close, and the multiethnic Ming relief force finally arrives on the Korean peninsula. Konishi Yukinaga and So Yoshitoshi barely escape with lives as the Japanese pull back to Seoul.   Ming Cloud Ladders were compact and quick to deploy. They allowed walls to be climbed at a 45 degree angle.  Zen Master Hyujong leads the unarmoured monks against the pavilion on Mt. Moranbong during the 2nd Battle of Pyeongyang.  As you can see in this pic of a sweaty goon, katana and muskets were useless on the steep, smooth and rocky mountains to the north of Seoul. Unarmoured monks with long spears had the advantage. Spoiler alert for next ep.  x100.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 06:47
|
|
bewbies posted:The basic idea was to deny the British access to overland routes across the Sinai. Before the canal, trade went overland from Suez to wherever and then across the Mediterranean. If they cut this off everyone who wasn't friendly with the French would have to take everything from India around Africa. The long-term strategic goal was to use the area as the staging base for a substantial operation against British India. It also was a big PR stunt associated with the newly established post Revolutionary government, as they sent quite a few scholars, artists and scientists with Napoleons men to study Egyptian history and the country in general which to Western European eyes always been a big mystery since the fall of the Roman Empire. We're not blood thirsty heathens! Look at us rediscovering culture and art! Ironically, the stunt made Napoleon more popular to the people of France as he sort of defeated the Mameluke and their Ottoman allies with ease despite his small forces and meager resources against what looked like horrible odds. Something they feared which is why they sent the man packing with those guys hoping he'd die of plague or be sunk by the Royal Navy.
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It also was a big PR stunt associated with the newly established post Revolutionary government, as they sent quite a few scholars, artists and scientists with Napoleons men to study Egyptian history and the country in general which to Western European eyes always been a big mystery since the fall of the Roman Empire. Well, it was helpful to Napoleon since he got a chance to practice the ancient art of leaving behind his army to get wiped out while he buggered off to collect the glory and promotions.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 03:41
|
|
sullat posted:Well, it was helpful to Napoleon since he got a chance to practice the ancient art of leaving behind his army to get wiped out while he buggered off to collect the glory and promotions. A practice I expect he began to regret after departing from Poland after the retreat from Russia. He could have used those veterans. In the case of Egypt though that was politics.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
It was less politics and more "having no navy to pick them up because the English tore it apart". It seems that the Egyptian expedition was a thing proposed and planned by Napoleon himself to glorify himself even further, an action supported by the Directory because they wanted to get rid of him.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 11:08
|
|
Mans posted:It was less politics and more "having no navy to pick them up because the English tore it apart". Pretty much. Is there a good documentary or book about The Directory?
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
Mans posted:It was less politics and more "having no navy to pick them up because the English tore it apart". What happened to his men?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:What happened to his men? According to Wikipedia they were eventually repatriated back to France though they managed to still win some impressive victories even without Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:According to Wikipedia they were eventually repatriated back to France though they managed to still win some impressive victories even without Napoleon. This process was actually a bit of a fiasco in British military circles. Having fought the Battle of the Nile precisely to trap the French army in Egypt, Nelson was understandably a bit put out by the idea that the British would actually provide ships to carry the French army back to Europe, and the precise terms of surrender varied back and forth depending on how badly the French army had beaten the latest Ottoman attempt to crush them outright.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Mans posted:Anthropology, sociology and psychology are important things to study the past with. How does that make you defend history is not a scientific study? Yup. Thucydides is quite an impressive guy. Much can be learned from this one. His description of the plague in Athens is gutwrenching. Collecting all the stories and getting into the different perspectives that he tried to cover, he surely did alot of interviews with witnesses. A daunting task. Maybe that's what makes up the quality of his work. Polybius isn't bad either. His structurization of events and causes and the interconnections on a larger scale that he makes out is quite impressive, given the means of that time. Those guys surely had a very organized mind and did alot of talking to the guys who've been around the heat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 22:06
|
|