Films/DVD Asylum

Perhaps you need more than "some" context

207.178.211.68

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

In Reply to: The Great Raid posted by jamesgarvin on June 20, 2006 at 11:25:55:

From Wikipedia:
"The Bataan Death March was a war crime involving the forcible transfer of prisoners of war, with wide-ranging abuse and high fatalities, by Japanese forces in the Philippines, in 1942, after the Battle of the Philippines (1941-42), during World War II. In Japanese, it is known as Batān Shi no Kōshin meaning the same. 10,000 of the 75,000 POWs died."
Your post makes the deaths of ten thousand unarmed prisoners in one week sound like little more than an unavoidable cultural faux pas by the Japanese. I certainly hope that's not your view.

Follow Ups:

Re: Perhaps you need more than "some" context - jamesgarvin 16:01:19 06/22/06 (2)
Perhaps rather than writing in broad generalities, you should provide some concrete examples of what I wrote that led you to that interpretation. I wrote: "Along the way, any men that left formation were summarily executed." Certainly, that sentence, by any rational interpretation, cannot be used to support your conclusion. The word "summarily" clearly makes the point that there was little thought involved in the execution, other than someone fell out of a single file line.
"The Japanese military culture indoctrinated their soldiers to believe that surrender was cowardly, and so the prisoners were viewed as cowards, not deserving to live." That is clearly not a judgment, but a fact, and explains, to a large extent, why the Japanese treated prisoners like they did. You could probably likewise find a cultural reason for why Japanese auto manufacturers are very successful.
"Your post makes the deaths of ten thousand unarmed prisoners in one week sound like little more than an unavoidable cultural faux pas by the Japanese." It certainly did not. Because some people interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify killing their children, which some have done, does not mean that the Bible stands for such a proposition. I will charitably attribute your post to a bad case of looking for something that is not there.
- First step to get out of a hole: - DWPCAPACHE 16:50:52 06/22/06 (1)
  Stop digging.
  Your words: "The Japanese military culture indoctrinated their soldiers to believe that surrender was cowardly, and so the prisoners were viewed as cowards, not deserving to live." That is clearly not a judgment , but a fact, and explains, to a large extent, why the Japanese treated prisoners like they did."
  Quite clearly "not a judgement". Your original explanation of the deaths of 10,000 is not only nonjudgemental, but goes some distance in rationalizing the Japaneses command's decision as a logical solution to a distribution problem. And you proceed to do it a second time in your response.
  In your review post you say "...the Bataan Death March, which was really marching the prisoners of war to various camps". I disagree and believe it was really an act of monumental barbarity.
  - is to read what is written - jamesgarvin 18:01:34 06/22/06 (0)
    The purpose of the The Bataan death march was to take the prisoners to other camps. That is a fact, not subject to conjecture. It was not called the Bataan Death March before the trek began. It became known as The Bataan Death march because of the murders which took place along the way. The same logic applies to the "Trail of Tears" that took Native Americans out west. I doubt the U.S. military announced to the Native Americans that "hey, get ready, we are leaving on the trail of tears." These events or places were given names because of what happened on them.
    You write: "In your review post you say "...the Bataan Death March, which was really marching the prisoners of war to various camps". I disagree and believe it was really an act of monumental barbarity."
    That the Death March was a march of the prisoners to various P.O.W. camps is beyond dispute. That it became a monumental barbarity is also beyond dispute. Your posts assumes that the march and the subsequently barbarity are mutually exclusive, as though me calling it a march, which it was in that men walked in a regimented line, and they themselves calling it a march, assumes that is was not barbarity, or that I did not think it was a barbarity because I called it a march. Your interpretation is a mistake. Your ascribing such a thought to me is an insult.
    You quote me as follows: "The Japanese military culture indoctrinated their soldiers to believe that surrender was cowardly, and so the prisoners were viewed as cowards, not deserving to live."
    I stand by that statement. Were these men born soldiers? Were they born with such evil in their hearts? Are rascists born rascists? Or do they learn those believes, which then lead to evil deeds? If you agree they are not born that way, then something entered their brains and warped their mental process. If it was not the Japanese military culture, then pray tell, what was it? Do Japanese believe the same things today? If not, then why not? Perhaps it is because the Japanese Military was dismantled following WWII, and it's culture eradicated, along with the Emperor.
    "Your original explanation of the deaths of 10,000 is not only nonjudgemental, but goes some distance in rationalizing the Japaneses command's decision as a logical solution to a distribution problem. And you proceed to do it a second time in your response."
    Again, you miss the point. I never wrote that the deaths of 10,000 men was a logical solution to a distribution problem. This is what I wrote: "The logic was that it was easier to smaller groups of prisoners." I left out a word, 'watch', but I did not correct the sentence because a rational person would know the missing word. Nothing in that sentence in any way, shape, or form states or implies that the reason the Japanese executed 10,000 men was because of a "distribution problem." It is clearly easier to watch 10 groups of 5000 rather than one group of 50,000. Or so the Japenese thought.
    This sentence is then followed by: "Along the way, any men that left formation were summarily executed." The reason I stated they were executed was because they left formation, not because the Japanese need to weed out men in order to make it easier to watch them. If that was their goal, then why not simply execute them, rather than march through a jungle? I would think it patently obvious for most, though apparently not all, the reason those men were killed is because they could not keep up, and the Japanese were not about to either halt the line for the sick and feeble, or carry those prisoners. Hence, they killed them. Those are facts. That you apparently need me to state the obvious that these acts are barbaric says more about you than me.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.