Has Japan killed more foreign civilians in WWII than any other country in history ?

[Keoland]

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 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/.../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]

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]

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/.../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..., Picasso's Guernica, or Rodin's Burghers of Calais ? Can you laugh at them in that safty of your home because you lack the imagination ?

[Keoland]

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

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

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

[lexico]

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

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

I appreciate sharing your personal experience, Keoland.

Sincerely,
Lexico

[McTojo]

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]

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, 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]

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, 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.