This was a fight to the death that was nothing like the war in Europe. IMHO that had as much to do with cultural clash as ideological clash. The Japanese felt there was no honor in fighting until the battle was lost and then surrendering. They felt battles should be fought to the last man...period. Thus you have massive death tolls on so many of those islands even to silly lengths such as Saipan. How many Japanese literally committed suicide on Saipan, even non combatants rather than surrender?
I think this view also accounted for at least some of the poor treatment of POWs. Americans fought until it was pointless on Corregidor and Wake Island then surrendered. The Japanese felt such behavior was wosre than that of dogs and treated prisoners accordingly. And that was on top of an already egocentric mind set that even other Asians were sub human and whites didn't quite ascend to the level of subhuman.
I don't think the Japanese invented the belief that "my race is better." Go back and look at some headlines of the day in the United States. The term "yellow peril" comes to mind.
In any event that war became a fight to the death, which makes the whole story even more compelling. I heard or read somewhere, or perhaps it's a story my Dad told, that orders were sent to the line on Iwo Jima that Japanese POWs were to be escorted to the rear and if they didn't make it alive, the escort would stand before a court marshall for murder. I don't think any courts marshall were ever held, but it helps understand the sentiment of the day.
I also read somewhere that in Japan, women and children were being taught how to attack machine guns using that time honored weapon of the broom stick because Americans liked to eat dead Japanese. How leaders can explain the need for such knowledge and action while also saying the white devils are being defeated everywhere will remain a mystery.
It's chic these days to say the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was immoral. It's so delightfully liberal to say it with the intervening cushion of 60 years. If you look at the mindset of the era, Americans felt sinking the entire Japanese nation 100 feet below the surface of the sea to save one more marine was a fair trade. If it came out that we had invaded Japan at the loss of who knows how many while Truman sat on such a life saving weapon, he would have been lucky to be tarred and feathered.
I also find it interesting that there are a few Japanese philosophers these days that admit there were a great deal more Japanese lives saved because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were lost in those cities.
I think Japanese fighters hated white folk. I think the feeling was mutual among sailors, soldiers and marines wearing US uniforms. The foundations of their cultures were so different as were their attitudes of life that it isn't surprising. It also makes negative judgements of those that fought for the good guys to be just a bit petty.
You wrote: "...I don't think the Japanese invented the belief that "my race is better." Go back and look at some headlines of the day in the United States. The term "yellow peril" comes to mind."
They may not have invented it, but are absolutely on par with "Us" if not worse when it comes to racism, and exceed our capability for xenophobia by a large factor.
The Japanese are probably the most homogenous society for one that large on the face of the earth. They have a common history that all Japanese share, predating Westerners in many cases. If you don't think that fosters an attitude of racism and xenophobia in the Japanese, you don't know them.
You would never be able to get an individual Japanese person to admit to your face how they view you, they are far too polite on the surface to do so. But if you know their culture and understand the language, it can be shocking to listen to what they say to each other when they don't think you understand. But they would never say those things directly to you.
If all the Japanese in Japan were lined up and asked to describe Americans and other Westerners in one word, the majority would probably come up with “selfish.” The reason for this is simple enough. The Japanese were conditioned for centuries to look upon independent, individualistic behavior—the hallmark of Americans and many other Westerners—as selfish, confrontational and disruptive. Outsiders are perceived as barbarians because they don't conform to cultural mandates and because no loyalty is owed to them. Independence is a social stigma; interdependence brings identity, acceptance, security, and a sense of purpose
I lived in Japan for several years, so I understand them a little better than many Americans do. I genuinely like the Japanese. Their capacity for appreciation of subtle beauty is unparalleled. They are so polite it often makes you want to scream. They are very considerate and generous, and have, in general, a great sense of humor.
I also lived in the Phillipines for several years. The Filipinos remember all too well the occupation of the Japanese. It was not, by any means, a benevolent occupation. Let me tell you, there is a good reason many countries in the Far East are troubled by, and fear, a re-militarized Japan.
Was the fighting different in the Pacific and European theatres? You bet, it was much more primitive and final in the Pacific. Did our military respect the abilities of those they fought equally? Yes. You talk to any Marine or sailor, and the respect he felt for the fighting ability of his Japanese opponent is evident. But that does not translate into kinship, as it may have done in the European theater against the Germans. There were no cases, or very few in the Pacific that parallel the experience of soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge who could hear Germans singing Christmas Carols, where a impromptu truce could unofficially take place for at least a couple of hours, and both sides could see their opponents as very much like themselves.
As for the Bomb, I do not think we disagree. My father, a 30 year naval veteran who served through WWII, Korea and Vietnam, was the speaker at the Veterans Day parade each year until the year he passed away. He got in trouble several years back with the un-PC statement "Dropping the bomb on Japan was the right thing to do." The papers up here the next day had articles like "WWII Vet approves the use of nuclear weapons against Japan" or some similar headline. My dad was not used to dealing with reporters.
So, Japan may not have invented "my race is better" since that prize probably goes to some fairly primitive human tribe, but if you think for even one second that the Japanese were not even more racist than the Westerners who fought them, then I do not believe you understand the Japanese.
" This was a fight to the death that was nothing like the war in Europe. IMHO that had as much to do with cultural clash as ideological clash. "
Your assertion that "this was a racist war" implies that the war was fought purely on the mutual dislike or hatred between the U.S. and the Japanese.
It was Japan's attack on China that precipitated the whole mess. We didn't impose an embargo on oil and raw materials because we hated the Japanese, it was in response to them slaughtering millions of Chinese. They didn't attack Pearl Harbor because they hated us, it was because we stood in their way (Thank God) of conquering and killing their neighbors.
What you've written shows what the war became and not really why it was fought.