4 ms·
That too. The Japanese did a much better job of destroying evidence of such crimes, while the Germans mostly meticulously documented them, and they were too bus
by M_Grey 10y ago
That too. The Japanese did a much better job of destroying evidence of such crimes, while the Germans mostly meticulously documented them, and they were too busy running like hell from the Soviets to destroy them all, once they saw what was in store for them.
- wtbob 10y agoAnd also the Germans surrendered 8 May, while the Japanese surrendered 14 August. Over the course of that quarter it had become more and more apparent that WWII wasn't going to end soon (it didn't, in fact, end until 15 March 1991), and that the Soviets were going to be the next enemy, and that we'd need to preserve Germany and Japan in some form (rather than adhering to the earlier Morgenthau Plan, which would have rurified all of Germany, in the process killing millions and making it much easier for the Soviets to roll through Europe). If there were any fairness, we'd have hanged the Japanese emperor, and quite a few more of his subjects responsible for crimes against humanity. But the political-military situation didn't allow it.
- M_Grey 10y agoIt was, and in many ways still is, remarkable that Japan and the US have managed to get along so well when you consider those desperate starting points. In the end, I think it's fair to say that the choices made in regards to holding some individuals accountable for their crimes at the expense of the broader reconstruction effort was the right one. Not easy to make at the time though, I would imagine.