Replies

The problem in this argument is the following.
People in the war all had person el experiences. I was not alive when this taking place. Therefore I must rely on written history.

I have read many accounts about what were considered atrocities during the Pacific war.
Many can be attributed to two disparate cultures meeting on the battlefield.
The Japanese considered surrender dishonorable, they consider friend or foe as dishonorable for surrendering.
The Allies considered surrender honorable, if the alternative was annihilation for no apparent gain.

Therefore the Japanese had no moral prohibition in allowing or committing the Bataan Death March, executing the left behinds of Carlson's Makin island raid (I believe was 9 Marines executed because Japanese did not want prisoners),not marking POW ships as such, or shipping POW's on merchant ships, which tended to be torpedoed by Allies. There are many more examples, but my library is at home. Which I am not.

The Americans would take prisoners, but in many cases those surrendering would attack after surrendering. Made it tough to determine who was genuinely surrendering

Did Americans commit atrocities, perhaps. But if they did was in context of the battle. Also I was not there so I cannot second guess their decisions.
Were they prevalent, I do not think so, because Americans soldiers have always been held to higher standard, and held themselves to higher standard
However if you are fighting an enemy that has no regard for surrendering troops, might color thinking when fighting said enemy.

Finally the purpose of the link about Guy Gabaldon was 2 fold.
First he should be honored and remembered for his service to his country.

But also I posted for a different reason, there were few Japanese as second language troops. Most were not allowed into combat but were used for intelligence or code intercept work. (Unable to attribute with link, something from my past research)

As a consequence , if no common language it is difficult to communicate surrender..
In Europe the problem was less prevalent as many Americans had smattering of German, Italian, french , therefore were able to convince enemy combatants to surrender.
Also enemy combatants in European theater for most part would surrender when to continue fighting was not sensible.
Since most countries in Europe were signatories of Geneva conventions most POWs were accorded rights listed there in.
And were more likely to surrender than fight to the death.
There were exceptions I am sure, but they were not the norm.

The Japanese were not signatory of Geneva convention ( Convention May 1929) , therefore did not abide by the conventions.
Since POWs (surrenders) were less than human, Japanese did not consider anything wrong with working them to death. Using for experimentation and so on.

Faced with this possibility later in war, explains why there were fewer prisoners on both sides.
The Japanese were told by their leaders that we killed and ate babies, that we did not take prisoners. Also was dishonorable to surrender. Since it was death penalty in Japanese Armed forces to surrender, the average soldier would fight to the death, unless could be convinced otherwise. See Guy Gabaldon.
The Allies knew of the cruelty of Japanese towards prisoners, therefore Allies were more likely to fight than surrender.

From the few entries that you posted from Chas Lindbergs diaries appears that he was comparing apples and oranges.
He was comparing how the war was prosecuted in Europe, to how should be prosecuted in Pacific, especially regarding prisoners.

But if you understand what I have tried to explain above may indicate the disparity of opinion on this subject.

One cannot judge the Pacific War by what was happening in Europe.
Since American combatants and European combatants have a shared heritage, we treated each other in more gentlemanly fashion. ( If one can say that about war)

In Pacific we were fighting an opponent that had no shared heritage with US and its allies.

As to the writings of Charles Lindberg, I am sad to say that I was unaware of this part of history.
I will endeavor to correct in the future.

In closing.
I would not dishonor anyone who served in this war or any other fighting for America.
The above observations are my own.
If you find that they are incorrect please correct.

I had the opportunity about a year and a half ago to speak at length with a veteran of several of the island battles in the Pacific, stemming from my mentioning to him in passing that I'd read EB Sledge's "With the Old Breed". If you've never read the book, I highly recommend it.

As horrific as that book was, it was nothing compared to seeing the look in that veteran's eyes as he recounted some of his experiences to me. Sixty years had not erased the horrors that he witnessed and his disbelief at the atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese. He described the terror he felt that he'd be captured and 'skinned alive' by them. He also detailed the ruthless efficiency and heroism of the men who drove the Japanese from the caves in what for many were inevitably suicide missions. None of it is for the squeamish. And I would be loathe to judge anyone for their wartime actions based on his account alone.

After enduring the candy-cane view of Charles Lindbergh that one receives in public school in this country, I grew up and expanded my horizons a bit.

Prior to the US entry into WWII, Lindbergh was what one might call his era's Cindy Sheehan (Jimmy Stewart's portrayal notwithstanding). He went out of his way to prevent the US from aiding the Brits or preparing our defense, and nearly cost them - and us- everything

Personally I wouldn't be offended if the guy had simply STFU in 1928.

executing the left behinds of Carlson's Makin island raid (I believe was 9 Marines executed because Japanese did not want prisoners)

If Lindberghs second hand account is true. Then we didn't execute 9 Japanese prisoners, but more like 2000, machine gunned on an airstrip. That was the one account where he deleted the name of the location and unit, apparently to protect the perpetrators. That's the one incident that rises above personal conduct to the level of genuine war crime.

The other surprising thing are the numerous discussions with senior officers Lindbergh had where they apparently ratify the "no prisoners" concept. They pass the buck that the enlisted war fighters just won't take prisoners. Lindberghs argument was not only that we were being barbaric, but that it was bad tactics as well. Had we spent the two years between Dec 7, 1941 and the summer of 1944 training a few Japanese speakers, then maybe we would have had thousands of Guy Gabaldons. Perhaps it would not have been as bloody on Iwo Jima, had we had a few trained people to talk the Japs from the caves as Gabaldon did by the hundreds. 800 prisoners on a single day, captured by one man! These are the fanatic Japanese that fight to the death? I think it much more probable that our policy of taking no prisoners created the situation where Japanese troops held out in the mountains for months, pining down our people and preventing them from being moved on to the next island. It was a stupid policy, as well as barbaric.

The original article in this post is about a Japanese doctor that killed a handful of innocent people while he was under orders. He spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it, and fully confessed to what he had done. In contrast, our troops apparently committed barbarities of their own, without direct orders to do so (one reported incident I didn't type in last night was a Japanese found tied to a post, apparently tortured to death). But I see no equivalent confessions by our people that these things happened. Instead I hear the story, "the japs refused to surrender, the japs refused to surrender, the japs refused to surrender", without the explanation offered that they did so because we wouldn't allow it.

Lindbergh published his diaries in 1970. There were plenty of veterans alive when it came out. Had Lindbergh been inventing stories, an innocent group of people, having their honor trashed would have called Lindbergh a liar. Lindbergh wouldn't be known as the guy who accepted a tin medal from the Germans in the days when he was attempting to head off war Europe, but would instead be the goon that trashed the honor of thousands of heros in battle. But that didn't happen. Instead his diaries were ignored, I think because he told the truth, and people with guilty consciences didn't want to admit their involvement. By staying silent, they allowed the fantasy that Americans were good, but the Japanese were evil, to continue. I'll accept that perhaps the Japanese were "more" barbaric, but I don't want to hear the preening that Americans were full of virtue while Japanese like the guy in the article at the top of the thread is not. The true story just isn't that black and white. Akira Makino admitted his guilt. The fact that there are no Americans that I've heard of admit to any improprieties at all is telling. I prefer Japanese honesty to American silence.