PDA

View Full Version : Has Japan killed more foreign civilians in WWII than any other country in history ?



Maciamo
Apr 12, 2005, 18:38
Looking at the list of World War I casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) and World War II casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country), I noticed that the civilian losses in China during WWII alone were higher than of all other countries combined (except USSR). And the numbers for other Asian countries are not even listed. As the Japanese were the sole responsible for these casulalities, then adding those of the rest of Asia, I was wondering if the Japanese do not deserve the dubious title of worse butchers of innocent in the history of mankind. No other war has caused more civilian deaths and more suffering (rapes, torture, slave workers, sexual slaves, biological experiments on live human beings...) than the Japanese invasion of Asia from the 1930's to 1945.

If you can think of a country having caused more civilian or total casualities in the same war (=same government and people, not with several centuries of interval), please let me know.

Jungle Boy
Apr 12, 2005, 19:00
Russia...Stalin killed over 20 million innocent Russians during his purges. The man was a genocidal maniac.

Maciamo
Apr 12, 2005, 22:16
Russia...Stalin killed over 20 million innocent Russians during his purges. The man was a genocidal maniac.

Yes, and Mao even did worse after WWII. Let say that Japan killed the highest number of "foreign civilians" (not own citizens). The total number of casualties caused by the Nazi are similar to that caused by the Japanese. The main difference is that the Japanese killed a disproportionately high number of civilians, while the Nazi killed more soldiers (and lost 4x more troops than the Japanese too, which indicates a higher level of soldiers vs soldiers fighting).

alexriversan
Apr 12, 2005, 22:43
what about the spaniards: how many aztecs?
what about the brits/french: how many native americans?
what about the inquisition(germany/france): how many hags, wizards and faggots?

just write down one, holy nation/race; which has not murdered at all. the israelites does not count, as they are already mentioned in the bible: the fleed from the egypt slavery!

"to the crucification? one cross only each, please"
(monthy pyton, the life of the brian)

mad pierrot
Apr 12, 2005, 23:23
As the Japanese were the sole responsible for these casulalities, then adding those of the rest of Asia, I was wondering if the Japanese do not deserve the dubious title of worse butchers of innocent in the history of mankind.

Are you sure? Doesn't that number include deaths of Chinese killed by other Chinese in internal conflicts? Seems impossibly high for the Japanese alone to be responsible for those deaths.

:?

Maciamo
Apr 12, 2005, 23:28
Are you sure? Doesn't that number include deaths of Chinese killed by other Chinese in internal conflicts? Seems impossibly high for the Japanese alone to be responsible for those deaths.


No, that was after WWII. The reason why the Japanese killed more people than the Nazi is that they invaded China from 1933 and stayed until 1945. 12 years in total, while the Nazi only fought for about 4.5 years (from late 1939 to early 1945).

mad pierrot
Apr 12, 2005, 23:41
Good point. But surely all of China couldn't have been united against Japan for all of those 12 years? There had to have been a few petty warlords who took advangtage of the situation. Enemies weakened by fighting Japanese forces would have been tempting targets.

I get your point, though. This is something I'm going to have to look into.


:sorry:

Maciamo
Apr 12, 2005, 23:41
what about the spaniards: how many aztecs?
what about the brits/french: how many native americans?
what about the inquisition(germany/france): how many hags, wizards and faggots?

You don't get my point. Everybody knows that every country has massacred other people or their own people at some time of their history.

But the Spaniards could not have massacred 20 million Amerindian for the sole reason that there were not 20 million Amerindian in the whole Americas when they got there. The world population has increased a lot in the last 2 centuries. We are now 6 billion people, but were only 1 billion in 1802 and about 500 million in 1500. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Population) tell us that the population of Latin America in 1750 (250 years after the Europeans arrived) was 16 million, including the European settlers.

Because WWII was one of the last major wars, and the one causing the highest death toll in history, it is only natural that the main protagonists be the worst butchers in history too. These were the Germans and the Japanese, and the title of this thread says that the Japanese killed the highest number of (foreign) civilians ever.

Maciamo
Apr 12, 2005, 23:45
Good point. But surely all of China couldn't have been united against Japan for all of those 12 years? There had to have been a few petty warlords who took advangtage of the situation. Enemies weakened by fighting Japanese forces would have been tempting targets.


China was not united, and that's partly why there was so little organised resistance from the Chinese. China was laready 10x more populous than Japan, and Japan only sent a fraction of its people as soldiers to China, but managed to control the most densely populated regions of the East. Only about 2 million Chinese soldiers died, against 10 million civilians. From what I read in my various history books, the Japanese army was extremely brutal in China, which accounts for the high number of civilian casualties.

mad pierrot
Apr 13, 2005, 00:03
Posted something and put my proverbial foot in mouth.


China was not united, and that's partly why there was so little organised resistance from the Chinese. China was laready 10x more populous than Japan, and Japan only sent a fraction of its people as soldiers to China, but managed to control the most densely populated regions of the East. Only about 2 million Chinese soldiers died, against 10 million civilians. From what I read in my various history books, the Japanese army was extremely brutal in China, which accounts for the high number of civilian casualties.

Of course. I'm well aware of the circumstances, but it seems dubious to attribute all of the 10,000,000 civilian casualties just to Japanese forces. That's not to say the Japanese didn't have a large hand in it. I mean attributing all isn't very reasonable. (For example, say directly slaughtered 7 million, caused another 2 million indirectly, and the remaining one million killed by various factions/warlords.) Blaming just Japan as the sole source of death at that time seems unrealistic to me. The major source, sure. But the sole source? No.

Maciamo
Apr 13, 2005, 00:18
Of course. I'm well aware of the circumstances, but it seems dubious to attribute all of the 10,000,000 civilian casualties just to Japanese forces. That's not to say the Japanese didn't have a large hand in it. I mean attributing all isn't very reasonable. (For example, say directly slaughtered 7 million, caused another 2 million indirectly, and the remaining one million killed by various factions/warlords.) Blaming just Japan as the sole source of death at that time seems unrealistic to me. The major source, sure. But the sole source? No.

Agreed, but 10 million is only one estimation. According to this article (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/90-04112005-474701.html), the Chinese government claims that Japan killed as many as 30 million Chinese. I tried to be conservative on the number already.

mad pierrot
Apr 13, 2005, 00:29
Point taken. I believe the number to be likely more than 10 million as well. Sad, but not far-fetched at all. I've got a few copies of Japanese middle school history texts sitting around and I've been trying to find a figure for it. I'm curious what they are teaching it to be. So far, no success. I'll be back with it when I find something substancial.

bossel
Apr 13, 2005, 08:51
Agreed, but 10 million is only one estimation. According to this article (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/90-04112005-474701.html), the Chinese government claims that Japan killed as many as 30 million Chinese. I tried to be conservative on the number already.
I don't think, 10m is a conservative estimate. Acc. to Rummel, that's already the high. I wouldn't trust the PRC government on the number of Chinese deaths. Rummel who seems to me to have the most accurate presentation of war deaths gives the medium of roughly 6m for Japanese democide (which includes 4m Chinese from 37-45 & 2m non-Chinese from 41-45).

Germany's democide was most probably worse (in numbers, the cruelty was presumably comparable). Rummel gives the number of 21m victims of German democide (see attachment).




Total killed by Stalin during the war years:
Davies: 16-17,000,000 non-war-dead
Rummel: 18,157,000 democides
NOTE: Numbers this high are hard to reconcile with the common estimates of 7 million Soviet civilian deaths during WW2. Even if we go with larger, more recent estimates of 17M civilian deaths, these number proposed by Rummel and Davies would leave no room for murders at German hands and deaths as a simple by-product of war.
A slight misrepresentation of Rummel, I think. The numbers I have look a bit different. The medium numbers Rummel gives are 19m for battle/occupation dead & 10m for Soviet democide.

Shooter452
May 8, 2005, 23:54
Because the personal computer had not yet been invented, records keeping was not up to today's standards, but according to the pundits of the time, it is possible that this title belongs to the Mongols.

Beside the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, various Europeans, they conquered most of Islam, heaping mountains of skulls in the process. Given their trend to exagerate beyond all understanding, historians of the time still say the numbers ran into tens of millions. It is conceivable. When they encountered a community that resisted them, they were known to put whole cities to the sword--literally.

The world population might have been smaller then, so the gruesome numbers might not have been close to the 20-30 million figures we're tossing around here but chronicals of the time were in agreement that these were some cru-well dudes. If they did not kill that many, it was because their sword arms got weary.

De mortuis nihil nisi bene.

deadhippo
May 9, 2005, 08:38
probably a large percentage of those deaths were indirect casualties
ie they died from desease

Shooter452
May 9, 2005, 11:19
probably a large percentage of those deaths were indirect casualties
ie they died from desease
True, quite possibly, but so were the civilian deaths in China during the Second World War.

That the disease casualties in China might have been the result of deliberate infections via Japanese biological warfare efforts or not is in debate. With low calorie diets, poor sanitation, constant upheaval as causes, it is also possible that these epidemics were naturally caused--however unlikely.

Arab chroniclers were unamimous: the Mongols slew all--men, women, children, all...without mercy and without regard. Again, I admit that there is reason to hold their figures at arm's length, but it is difficult to totally discount them.

mingo
May 9, 2005, 12:19
one thing I do know is that my great grandfather was killed by japanese soldier as a innocent civilian, and my grandparents, they need to run into mountains in order to avoid "japanese demon" or "japanese ghost". That's how they earned this name for their bruteness.

TuskCracker
May 16, 2005, 04:29
.
I was talking to another American, while watching the movie PURPLE BUTTERFLY. At the end of the movie was real footage of atrocities in Nanking, and the bombing of Shanghia.

We both agreed we seen this a hundred times on the HISTORY CHANNEL.

This is ancient history, the world has moved on..

Most Americans seem to generally move on, with some small exceptions and not spend the rest of their lives dwelling in the past.
.

bossel
May 16, 2005, 06:28
This is ancient history, the world has moved on...
Er..., you must have a different definition of ancient than I have. Some people who lived through WWII are still alive.

TuskCracker
May 17, 2005, 06:57
Er..., you must have a different definition of ancient than I have. Some people who lived through WWII are still alive.

Their very old. Lets say you were 20 years old in 1945. You would be, today, 79-80 years old.

bossel
May 17, 2005, 08:46
Their very old. Lets say you were 20 years old in 1945. You would be, today, 79-80 years old.
Well, that's not really what I'd call ancient. If you call people of that age ancient, I suppose, that can be considered rude.

ralian
May 17, 2005, 13:57
Agreed, but 10 million is only one estimation. According to this article (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/90-04112005-474701.html), the Chinese government claims that Japan killed as many as 30 million Chinese. I tried to be conservative on the number already.
I don't trust information comes out from Chinese government. Will they ever provide accurate information?
Besides, nobody knows the accurate number on this because of lack of research and accurate information.
Also, I would like to point out that in the book written by Iris Chan hThe Rape of Nankingh , so many fabricated photos were found. Of course, the provider of those photos was Chinese government.

bossel
May 18, 2005, 07:19
I don't trust information comes out from Chinese government. Will they ever provide accurate information?
Besides, nobody knows the accurate number on this because of lack of research and accurate information.
Also, I would like to point out that in the book written by Iris Chan hThe Rape of Nankingh , so many fabricated photos were found. Of course, the provider of those photos was Chinese government.
Don't see your point...

We don't need the PRC government to know that millions of Chinese were killed by Japanese forces.

Nobody knows the accurate numbers in Europe, too. But we have estimates.

ralian
May 18, 2005, 09:29
Don't see your point...

We don't need the PRC government to know that millions of Chinese were killed by Japanese forces.

Nobody knows the accurate numbers in Europe, too. But we have estimates.
Wasn't it PRC government who suggested that 30M people were killed in “μ‹ž?
Nobody else is suggesting such figure.
However, wasn't the population of “μ‹ž 20M that time?
I could be wrong.

bossel
May 18, 2005, 10:02
Wasn't it PRC government who suggested that 30M people were killed in “μ‹ž?
It seems, you're confusing some things here. The official PRC victim figure for the Nanjing Massacre is >300,000. Roughly that number is widely accepted in historical circles, but there are a number of lower estimates & very few higher.

30m is, IIRC, the officiall PRC estimate for the whole Sino-Japanese War. This is probably exaggerated. I'd go for a number around 10m, but the estimates vary widely.



However, wasn't the population of “μ‹ž 20M that time?
The actual number of Nanjing inhabitants at the time is hard to calculate, since the city was full of refugees. It may have been up to 1m, but I never saw the number of 20m anywhere.

ralian
May 18, 2005, 10:18
It seems, you're confusing some things here. The official PRC victim figure for the Nanjing Massacre is >300,000. Roughly that number is widely accepted in historical circles, but there are a number of lower estimates & very few higher.

30m is, IIRC, the officiall PRC estimate for the whole Sino-Japanese War. This is probably exaggerated. I'd go for a number around 10m, but the estimates vary widely.

The actual number of Nanjing inhabitants at the time is hard to calculate, since the city was full of refugees. It may have been up to 1m, but I never saw the number of 20m anywhere.
Yes, I was confused about the figure as I was reading articles written in Japanese.
I meant to say that the population of Nanjing was 200,000 that time, while PRC claims that the figure for Nanjing Massacre was 300,000.
Probably no one knows.
It is hard to investigate unless researchers receive full corporation from Chinese government.

pipokun
May 18, 2005, 20:01
It seems, you're confusing some things here. The official PRC victim figure for the Nanjing Massacre is >300,000. Roughly that number is widely accepted in historical circles, but there are a number of lower estimates & very few higher.
...
The actual number of Nanjing inhabitants at the time is hard to calculate, since the city was full of refugees. It may have been up to 1m, but I never saw the number of 20m anywhere.

Roughly that number is widely accepted in historical circles
Really? Which circles?

I always wonder if WWII really ended in Asia in 1945.
If I were a Chinese/Korean survivor, maybe even Taiwanese after Kunmintan regime, my answer must be "no".

bossel
May 19, 2005, 03:28
Roughly that number is widely accepted in historical circles
Really? Which circles?
Mainstream historians usually agree on 300,000 as a valid estimate, though numbers between 200,000 & 300,000 (closer to 300,000) are acceptable as well, if you didn't notice. Numbers below 200,000 are only purported by a minority (most of them in Japan).

Kionon
May 19, 2005, 16:32
I'm going to veer here and ask why every other thread seems to have something to do with Japanese atrocities in WWII. Could we not have contained it to one thread?

For the record, I do believe Imperial Japan holds this title, but I am curious as to why it matters. I still must insist on calling it Imperial Japan, for reasons discussed elsewhere. Are we, as a global community, so unwilling to forgive that we must dwell on the actions of those which are mostly dead, and will be completely very soon?

pipokun
May 19, 2005, 21:16
As Falk Pingel in the Georg Eckert Institute mentioned, I don't think PRC accepts researches from other countries or that Japan and PRC/Taiwan hold open dialogues upon their histories. I still don't understand who are "mainstream" historians like you said.
Anyways, looking at the great effort of the Institute, I don't know if it is feasible to build mutual agreements upon the history between different regimes, but I know it would be much better than nothing.

lexico
May 20, 2005, 00:30
Are we, as a global community, so unwilling to forgive that we must dwell on the actions of those which are mostly dead, and will be completely very soon?I think that's an important question you ask. I found this keynote address to the International Citizensf Forum on War Crimes and Redress: Seeking Reconciliation and Peace for the 21st Century, Mark Wientraub, Dec. 10 1999, Tokyo:

quote: Accountability, Justice and the Importance of Memory in the 'Era of War' (http://www.vcn.bc.ca/alpha/speech/Weintraub1.htm)

Accountability and justice have the potential to redeem evil and therefore have the potential to be massively transformative experiences; for these are the only paths to rescue humanity from the depths of inhumanity. All peoples, as a single human family must commit and re-commit themselves to the post-Holocaust cry of gNever again!h We hope this Conference will one day be seen as a great human rights watershed; ... even if it accomplishes nothing else, stands as a beacon of light to the victims, to present and future generations of Asians and to all citizens of the world.

Also see IENAGA Saburo ‰Ζ‰iŽOϋΆ, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize: The Letter (http://vcn.bc.ca/alpha/ienaga/letter.htm)

Uncle Frank
May 20, 2005, 01:29
Anyone know about US "collateral damage/civilian casualties" since WW1?
Seems with all the wars the US has been involved in using Naval bombardment and air bombing the numbers must be fairly high? Just Germany and Japan alone must make those figures high. It must be hard to figure a correct number when whole cities are destroyed with all written records destroyed.

Frank

:?

lexico
May 20, 2005, 01:55
Also, I would like to point out that in the book written by Iris Chan hThe Rape of Nankingh, so many fabricated photos were found. Of course, the provider of those photos was Chinese government.The caracterization 'fabricated' could be considered loaded; perhaps 'misidentified' might serve the purpose better, reserving the term 'fabricated' for genuinely forged instances only. With critical cross-examinations such as offered by Hata Ikuhiko (http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Nanjing/nanjing2.html) the reliability of existing photos should become more reliable in future studies.

lexico
May 20, 2005, 04:07
The actual number of Nanjing inhabitants at the time is hard to calculate, since the city was full of refugees. It may have been up to 1m, but I never saw the number of 20m anywhere.Acc. to Tawara Yoshifumi •U ‹`•Ά Nanjing area consisted of

1. NCD Nanjing City Ditrict “μ‹žι™½
2. NSA Nanjing Suburban Area “μ‹ž‹ίx™½
3. NISZ Nanjing International Safety Zone “μ‹žš Ϋˆΐ‘S™½

"Within NCD lies NISZ, the International Safety Zone."

"Nanjing Massacre involved not only NCD but also NSA."

"At that time, immediately preceding Najing's takeover by Imperial Japanese Army, NCD had around 1 million people, NSA around 1.5 million, adding up to around 2.5 million. (Kasahara Jugyushi Š}Œ΄\‹γŽi Nanjing Incident “μ‹žŽ–Œ Iwanami shoden Šβ”g‘“X 1997)."

"When Imperial Japanese Army attacked Nanjing many people including the rich left the NCD; however there also flowed from the NSA into NCD. Hence the population of NCD was in a constant flux."

"NCD population was around 500,000; in addition to that were Nanjing Defence Force numbering 150,000. (Nanjing Mayor Ma Chaojun ”n’΄r in his letter to KMT Military Committee dated 1937.11.23 wrote 'current population around 500,000, and expecting an increase of around 200,000 refugees.')"

"The (oft quoted population of 'Nanjing' of) 200,000 refers to (only) those concentrated in the Nanjing International Safety Zone including some refugees (who made it into the safery zone). After the Imperial Japanese occupation of Nanjing, additional refugees fleeing from the massacre and rapes caused the Safety Zone's population to rise to around 250,000 within a month."

"The scheme of downplaying/neglecting the magnitude of the Nanjing Massacre can be seen in the right-wing nationalist group of historians' (Association for Creating New Textbooks) attempt at forging revisionist history books) is conuing although the stated facts have been elucidated byt Nanjing Massacre researchers (“μ‹žŽ–ŒΖΈ硏‹†˜π ed. '13 Lies of Nanjing Massacre Sceptics' ”‘–[, 1999)."

Source: Tawara Yoshifumi •U ‹`•Ά, a Japanese expert on textbooks, examined the situation in a recent article: "Kenpo Ihan/Shinryaku Senso Kotei no 'Abunai Kyokasho' no Jittai" (The facts of a 'dangerous textbook' that violates the constitution and that affirms the aggressive war), published in _Kikan Senso Sekinin Kenkyu_, no.30 2000

Acc. the information above the estimated population in NCD alone would have been around 500k + 200k + 150k = 850k = 850,000 on December 13, 1937, at the time of Nanjing's fall. To this should be added the remaining population of NSA, Nanjing suburbs comprised of 6 regional districts Œœ•{ which can only raise the population estimate.

Sr Pasta
Jun 4, 2005, 23:14
But the Spaniards could not have massacred 20 million Amerindian for the sole reason that there were not 20 million Amerindian in the whole Americas when they got there.

Where's you're source for that? I've heard people claiming as many as a hundred million people living in the Americas before the europeans came, where of 90 per cent or so died mainly because of deseases and the destruction of their social structures. I've no idea what the numbers where, but you seem to simply assume a low number?

Dorian1977
Aug 8, 2005, 14:34
I think that Japan was not the only country responsible for killings, during a war casualties are inevitable, even killings of innocent (unfortunately), there are are other countries too which are responsible for world war 2 except Japan, Germany killed millions of people during world war 2 , and Stalins victims are tens of millions therefore blaming only Japan is something inacurate from the historical point of view.

Maciamo
Aug 8, 2005, 15:43
I think that Japan was not the only country responsible for killings, during a war casualties are inevitable, even killings of innocent (unfortunately), there are are other countries too which are responsible for world war 2 except Japan, Germany killed millions of people during world war 2 , and Stalins victims are tens of millions therefore blaming only Japan is something inacurate from the historical point of view.

Of course many (if not all) countries can be blamed. This thread just concentrate of the worst atrocities and largest killing of civilians (not so inevitable in a war) ever. Japan, Russia, China and Germany are very likely the top 4. The question was "Has Japan actually killed more civilians than the others ?" Compared to Germany, I think the answer is "yes", but it's true that Stalin and Mao have comitted such atrocities against their own people that Japan may well rank 3rd. Japan would be first for the killing of "foreign civilians".

Konoike no neko
Aug 9, 2005, 16:56
The Nanjing Incident
Recent Research and Trends
by
David Askew
Associate Professor
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Lecturer
Monash University
Research Editor
History of Ideas and Law
electronic journal of contemporary japanese studies
http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html

lexico
Aug 9, 2005, 17:31
Acknowledging Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi's research "The Nanking 100-Man Killing Contest Debate," Gregory Smits of Penn. State Univeristy states, "the sheer quantity, wide variety and high quality of evidence available today that attest to this massacre makes it more difficult than ever for anyone with intellectual integrity to dismiss or minimize it."

Japanese Views of the Second Sino-Japanese War (http://www.east-asian-history.net/textbooks/MJ/war_views.htm):
Through the lens of the Nanjing Massacre and Events Connected with It by Gregory Smits

Above page with extensive, informative links was built as part of
Making Japan: Modern Japanese History at Penn. State Univ. (http://www.east-asian-history.net/textbooks/MJ/index.htm) by Gregory Smits

Other material in topics of histories of Japan and China to be found at main page
East Asian History Textbooks (http://www.east-asian-history.net/textbooks/index.htm), Gregory Smits

Keoland
Aug 9, 2005, 22:45
But the Spaniards could not have massacred 20 million Amerindian for the sole reason that there were not 20 million Amerindian in the whole Americas when they got there. The world population has increased a lot in the last 2 centuries. We are now 6 billion people, but were only 1 billion in 1802 and about 500 million in 1500. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Population) tell us that the population of Latin America in 1750 (250 years after the Europeans arrived) was 16 million, including the European settlers.

Ahem.

Do not underestimate us iberians, my friend. At the time of the spanish conquest in 1532, the Inca Empire had 12 million inhabitants. And the total population of Mesoamerica is estimated at 25 million people.

That's 37 million natives, and it's not even counting the population north of the Aztec Empire, nor those outside the Inca Empire, and much less those that lived in what is now Brazil and Argentina, the latter ones estimated at about 10 million people.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=28051

The population of the Inca Empire at the time of the
Spanish conquest in 1532 is commonly estimated to have been around 12 000 000 (...)

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm

(...) Later, however, he and his colleague Woodrow Borah revised his estimate of the total central Mexican population upward to 25 million (...)

So, if the population of Latin America 250 years later was just 16 million people, with millions of european settlers included... you do the math.

Himuro Murder Fan
Aug 11, 2005, 09:28
Ok. If you read the WWII book and watch the movies Japan barly killed more then Germany. Hittler killed millions of jews and sush. Japan just dropped a few bombs on the Pearl Harbor and killed much less then Germany. It is true that Japan was allies of Germany but now they are on our side I think and hope. It's no ones fauly but Germany so blame them. But it's too lat for talking about this so don't blame germany.

lexico
Aug 12, 2005, 18:27
Ahem.

Do not underestimate us iberians, my friend. At the time of the spanish conquest in 1532, the Inca Empire had 12 million inhabitants. And the total population of Mesoamerica is estimated at 25 million people.

That's 37 million natives, and it's not even counting the population north of the Aztec Empire, nor those outside the Inca Empire, and much less those that lived in what is now Brazil and Argentina, the latter ones estimated at about 10 million people.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=28051

The population of the Inca Empire at the time of the
Spanish conquest in 1532 is commonly estimated to have been around 12 000 000 (...)

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm

(...) Later, however, he and his colleague Woodrow Borah revised his estimate of the total central Mexican population upward to 25 million (...)

So, if the population of Latin America 250 years later was just 16 million people, with millions of european settlers included... you do the math.So what exactly is your point ?
Not to "underestimate the Iberians" in what ? In the Iberian capacity to commit genocide by wiping out at least 37 mil - 16 mil = 21 million AmeroIndian peoples in the American regions occupied by the Portuguese and the Spaniards in the 250 years from mid 1500's to mid 1700's ? Shame on you to brag about murder !

Do the Iberians have the capacity to rise above the narrow peninsular mentality or the Eurocentric mentality for once ?
What do you see in John Donn's No Man... (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=232092&postcount=23), Picasso's Guernica (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~lanes/english/hemngway/picasso/guernica.jpg), or Rodin's Burghers of Calais (http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/bronzedirect/Calais2004-8.jpg) ? Can you laugh at them in that safty of your home because you lack the imagination ?

Keoland
Aug 12, 2005, 20:44
So what exactly is your point?

My point was that Maciamo was excluding outright the possibility that the spaniards could have killed more than 20 million amerindians, on the grounds that there were not 20 million amerindians to beguin with.

Since the data avaliable points otherwise, I pointed that out - what Spain did in the early XVIth century probably rates as the biggest wiping out of humans ever in terms of the percentage of the total population (I don't recall a bigger one).


So what exactly is your point?

Actually, the 16 million include millions of european settlers. Also the 37 millions are just the mesoamericans plus the population of the Inca Empire. It does not include the rest of South America. The total amerindian population of central and south america in 1519 was probably around 50 million people, perhaps more.

And the eliminations occurred (in the spanish part) in the very first years of the colonization, not over 250 years - the 16 million people in 1750 already include some recovery by the native population. The data points to the elimination of around 80-90% of the natives in the first 100 years.

The point is to show the hypocrisy of many which point to the atrocities of the XXth century and show them as "the greatest ever", but at the same time are totally blind to the fact that other peoples (which have a good international standing - there is no international movement against the portuguese or spanish) have done things that make whatever the Japanese or Germans did in WW2 look like small things in comparison. Which happens to be quite relevant to the title of this thread.

It also makes us often wonder why the Germans and Japanese are so often accused, while nobody seems to care about us :o



Do the Iberians have the capacity to rise above the narrow peninsular mentality or the Eurocentric mentality for once?

Funny you ask that. In the XVIIIth century, Montesquieu wrote something he called "Persian Letters", which were done as if someone from Persia was visiting Europe. The idea was to show the cultural difference between the two civilizations.

Regarding us iberians, his fictional persian character wrote:

"I have, in six months time, run through Spain and Portugal; and I have lived among a people, who despising all others, do the French alone the honour of hating them".

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0959

(Letter LXXVIII)

To be honest, we have background from the days of the Romans. The numbers advanced by Julius Caesar in his De Bello Gallico indicate that he wiped out one third of the population of Gaul during seven years of war. Whole tribes were anihilated.

He also presents exact data one some points. The Helvetii and their allies, which migrated to Gaul in 60 b.C., numbered exactly 368 000 souls, according to their own census. After he clashed with them for some months, and especially after the Battle of Bibracte, Caesar notes that only 113 000 were left to return to their original country. The soil of the Hill where the Helvetii made their final stand was soaked in human blood from men, women and children. That is the equivalent of the Massacre of Nanking, but done in just one day, out of a much smaller population and just with swords.

The Venetii in Brittany (250 000 people), for that matter vanished totally from History after their rebellion. Caesar wanted to make an example out of them.

These cases are recurrent in Latin History. Yet most people point to the Romans as an example to be followed. And Caesar is a very respected leader :o



Can you laugh at them in that safty of your home because you lack the imagination ?

I don't need imagination, I lived in Africa for some time and saw a fair share of butchery myself. Have you ever seen women who had their limbs chopped off and then were impaled by their vaginas after having been raped by dozens?

Or people gunned down the streets by the police just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (namely, when the police was passing by?).

Or having to pass over a line of corpses to get to work, after the disco next door was attacked by the guerilla? (I stepped on many teeth who were on the ground - the people tried to flee, and many were stomped to death - they left their teeth there when their heads were stepped on by the fleeing crowd).

Or waiting for transportation while the person which was previously there just had their brains blown off? (and the fresh corpse is still there, because it will take many hours until someone even bothers to pick it up).

I do have these experiences. Unlike what you think, one does not become insensitive to human death by never experiencing it - it is when it becomes a familiar everyday sight that we stop caring. Either that, or we go insane.

Regards,
Keoland

PopCulturePooka
Aug 12, 2005, 20:47
Aye lexico, I think Keoland's "Don't underestimate..." comment was supposed to have a sarcastic tone.

As in he wasn't boasting about it as much as displaying his regional group as just as bad when it comes to genocide.

lexico
Aug 13, 2005, 04:55
PopCulturePooka: I appreciate your trying to ease the tension. I'm sure we can work this out in a civil, rational manner. It's just that sarcasm regarding human lives doesn't quite work for me. Thanks, though.

Keoland:

Thanks for responding. You wrote,
My point was that Maciamo was excluding outright the possibility that the spaniards could have killed more than 20 million amerindians, on the grounds that there were not 20 million amerindians to beguin with.If it can be proven with certainty that the pre-Columbian populations of the Amricas was in excess of 20 million, you might have a point, but can it ?
Since the data avaliable points otherwise, I pointed that out - what Spain did in the early XVIth century probably rates as the biggest wiping out of humans ever in terms of the percentage of the total population (I don't recall a bigger one).1) What data specifically ?
2) To how many do the data point ? (of course you said ca. 50 million, but how was the calculation done ?)
3) "What Spain did in the early XVIth century" : You greatly overestimate what the Spanish did to reduce the American population. Don't you think you might have seen that period thru the bias of modern history ?
Actually, the 16 million include millions of european settlers.Can you be a bit more specific as to how many Portuguese and Spanish were among the 16 million ? Even an informed range of possible population figure ?
Also the 37 millions are just the mesoamericans plus the population of the Inca Empire. It does not include the rest of South America. The total amerindian population of central and south america in 1519 was probably around 50 million people, perhaps more.Your figure of 50 million is close to one figure of 54 million by geographer William Denevan; this might or might not have been your figure of 50 million, but I'm asking anyway to see if there was a study independent of Denevan's.
20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons...
In 1976, geographer William Denevan used various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that.
And the eliminations occurred (in the spanish part) in the very first years of the colonization, not over 250 years - the 16 million people in 1750 already include some recovery by the native population. The data points to the elimination of around 80-90% of the natives in the first 100 years.You are probably correct in placing the time of population reduction at around the first century --perhaps even within several decades-- since the arrival of the conquistadors. Nothwithstanding "Dominican friar Bartolom de Las Casas' writings that vividly depict atrocities committed on the natives by the Spanish," the figures (exactly to how great are they ?) hardly accounts for the huge decline in Amerindian population.

The main culprits were supposedly "Old World" diseases to which the Amerinidans had no immunity; the 80-90% death of Amereindians were probalby cause by diseases such as small pox, the flu, the common cold, and other minor disease for which Old World populations had well develope strong immunity over time.
Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives.

Disease began to kill immense numbers of indigenous Americans soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of the Old World. One reason this death toll was overlooked (or downplayed) for so long is that disease, according to the widely held theory, raced ahead of European immigration in many areas, thus often killing off a sizeable portion of the population before European observations (and thus written records) were made.

Many European immigrants who arrived after the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of American natives assumed that the natives had always been few in number. The scope of the epidemics over the years was enormous, killing millions of people — in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas — and creating "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe."
The point is to show the hypocrisy of many which point to the atrocities of the XXth century and show them as "the greatest ever", but at the same time are totally blind to the fact that other peoples (which have a good international standing - there is no international movement against the portuguese or spanish) have done things that make whatever the Japanese or Germans did in WW2 look like small things in comparison. Which happens to be quite relevant to the title of this thread.As the basic evidence on which you propose your objection to the thread thesis is not sufficiently established, eventhough I find your hypothesis of a major massacre of the Amerindian populations in the hands of the Iberian peoples fascinating and worthy of investigation, it is yet premature to label anything "hypocricy." Perhaps your emotionally devastating observations and personal testimonies from acquaintances regarding Portuguese/Spanish/Belgian atrocities in Africa in recent years have driven you to this hypothesis ?
It also makes us often wonder why the Germans and Japanese are so often accused, while nobody seems to care about us :o Well, if the "us" you are referring to were indeed guilty of 80-90% of Amerindian deaths, don't worry. Just relay the facts and evidence, and I'm sure together we can build a case of genocide to judge the crimes to your satisfaction.

source: Population history of American indigenous peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples)

I appreciate sharing your personal experience, Keoland.

Sincerely,
Lexico

McTojo
Oct 22, 2005, 06:41
Maciamo,

So, what's your overall conclusion on this ? I think it's personally disgusting to listen to someone prove an island nation alone was personally responsible for killing the most innocent civilians than any other country in HISTORY ! I think you don't have enough facts to back your claims. When you mention history are you talking about the entire history of man or civilization or recorded history ???? And what makes you think everybody was innocent ? Other people bought up better points !

Maciamo
Oct 22, 2005, 08:26
So, what's your overall conclusion on this ? I think it's personally disgusting to listen to someone prove an island nation alone was personally responsible for killing the most innocent civilians than any other country in HISTORY ! I think you don't have enough facts to back your claims. When you mention history are you talking about the entire history of man or civilization or recorded history ???? And what makes you think everybody was innocent ? Other people bought up better points !

I should have said "foreign civilians" instead of "innocent civilians" for 2 reasons :

1) China and Russia may have killed more of their own civilians under Stalin and Mao, than Japan killed around Asia.
2) As you point out "innocent" is a very vague and subjective term. I meant "non-military people who had no weapons to defend themselves" or "people who had never killed anyone". It's true that if you consider that a petty crime ot "moral sin" makes people lose their "legal or moral innocence", then it's difficult to determine.

We may never know about the number of Amerindians who died after the arrival of the Spaniards, but there are two reasons that make me think that Japan's case is worse :

1) Looking at the evolution of the world population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population), it is improbable that the population of the Americas was higher than 15 or 20 million in the late 15th century. The world population was about 400 million in 1492, and Latin America's share of the world population between 1750 to this day has always stood around 5% (even with modern argicultural technologies, deforestation, etc.). Asia's population in 1937-45 was around 1.3 billion, which makes it more plausible that 15 million Asians may hae died.

2) The vast majority of the Amerindians who died in the first few decades after 1492 (maybe 80% of the continent), died because of diseases, and were not directly or intentionally killed by the Spaniards, contrarily to the mass murders, scientific experiments, etc. of the Japanese in Asia.

McTojo
Oct 22, 2005, 11:17
I should have said "foreign civilians" instead of "innocent civilians" for 2 reasons :

1) China and Russia may have killed more of their own civilians under Stalin and Mao, than Japan killed around Asia.
2) As you point out "innocent" is a very vague and subjective term. I meant "non-military people who had no weapons to defend themselves" or "people who had never killed anyone". It's true that if you consider that a petty crime ot "moral sin" makes people lose their "legal or moral innocence", then it's difficult to determine.

We may never know about the number of Amerindians who died after the arrival of the Spaniards, but there are two reasons that make me think that Japan's case is worse :

1) Looking at the evolution of the world population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population), it is improbable that the population of the Americas was higher than 15 or 20 million in the late 15th century. The world population was about 400 million in 1492, and Latin America's share of the world population between 1750 to this day has always stood around 5% (even with modern argicultural technologies, deforestation, etc.). Asia's population in 1937-45 was around 1.3 billion, which makes it more plausible that 15 million Asians may hae died.

2) The vast majority of the Amerindians who died in the first few decades after 1492 (maybe 80% of the continent), died because of diseases, and were not directly or intentionally killed by the Spaniards, contrarily to the mass murders, scientific experiments, etc. of the Japanese in Asia.

Again, not enough facts. You pull wikipedia again which only gives you world population figures as a whole. Furthermore, you wouldn't have any idea who were civilian nor non-civilian given the information and sources you provided and moreover, how would you even know exact population numbers at that time through your one source. Too many variables to deduce that Japan murdered more civilian foreigners than any other country in history !

It's 2005 and we still can't accurately count the number of human being on earth even computers.

lexico
Oct 22, 2005, 15:15
Again, not enough facts. You pull wikipedia again which only gives you world population figures as a whole.You clearly haven't read the thread even when the link was provided. Plase refer to the info linked in Maciamo's post no. 1;
Looking at the list of World War I casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) and World War II casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country), I noticed that the civilian losses in China during WWII alone were higher than of all other countries combined (except USSR). And the numbers for other Asian countries are not even listed.
Furthermore, you wouldn't have any idea who were civilian nor non-civilian given the information and sources you provided and moreover, how would you even know exact population numbers at that time through your one source. Too many variables to deduce that Japan murdered more civilian foreigners than any other country in history !

It's 2005 and we still can't accurately count the number of human being on earth even computers.How would you know what Maciamo knows if you haven't checked the source he linked ? For the sake of accuracy, the figures have to objectified by taking the source population and number of years of genocide; i.e. deaths per million per year would give you something like this.

<table 4. deaths percentage annual (per year-per population 100)> (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=235456&highlight=rummel#post235456)

using adjusted figures, or this according to Rummel's figures unadjusted. It should be noted that Rummel counts even Japan's revisionist, denialist statistics by counting number of theories presented to avoid the cumbersome work of having to evaluate each claim, which means dishonest revisonist crap made in Japan also crept into his study. Hence I took the modified figure from Wikipedia however you would wish to discredit it.

Dig around for more details with keyword Democicde/Genocide/ or Rummel and you will find an abundance of materials with analytic breakdowns into the details of civilian/military deaths/casualties which you are so interested in; but ther study is hardly finished, only started by Rummel and others in the study of Genocide, Democide, Murder, and Discrimination.

McTojo
Oct 22, 2005, 17:41
,
which means dishonest revisonist crap made in Japan also crept into his study . .


Why is it whenever a nation tries to defend itself against bleeding heart liberals and internationalist are they( Japan) called revisionist ?
It simple shows that you are bias and that you refuse to accept any interpretation of history from Japan whatsoever. This study that you and Maciamo cooked-up with the help of wikipedia is not credible at all and if I were an expert on history I would poke holes in it. It sounds so diluted and bias against Japan.

bluubear
Nov 2, 2005, 10:48
I think in the WWII, Japanese soldiers may have killed more FOREIGN civilians (sadly, in brutal ways too, and I do not call any killing of such nature justified~)
But of course there were some Japanese of good conscience who actually helped the allies~

edit:

actually having just read about how many of its own civilians died (especially toward the end of the war) - either killed by the Japanese soldiers or committed suicide - I think that figure is pretty big as well.

One interesting thing strikes me in that there are a few civilian mass grave (from 500 - 5000 people in each grave) in the Town of Fang Zheng in China dedicated to these deceased Japanese civlians during the war, yet I don't recall any government officials going there to mourn them while Yasukuni Shrine seems to be so much more popular. These cemeterys are currently exposed to lack of management and for diplomatic reasons the Chinese govenerment cannot put in more effort than it has now unless the Japanese government shows interest in doing that. Sadly no interest from the Japanese government >.< :okashii: