Timeline for What was the nature of the Japanese presence in China in the later stages of World War II?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2020 at 13:10 | comment | added | MCW♦ | Too many comments not present in the question. | |
| Jan 12, 2020 at 9:21 | answer | added | totalMongot | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 22, 2017 at 9:13 | vote | accept | Tom Au | ||
| Sep 17, 2017 at 4:59 | comment | added | Greg | @TomAu In a war the occupying forces can enforce the law, including capital punishment. Committing large scale executions, forced labor for retaliation/political purposes is crime against humanity, whether it is your country or not. Dahau wasn't "legal". Also, de juve situation of the ownership of a territory (which you imply, and generally clear only after treaties, armistice etc) can completely different from military reality and practices (which you ask). Also, Japan didn't ratify the Geneve convention, so it is rather irrelevant if Japan ever broke its spirit . | |
| Sep 16, 2017 at 18:33 | answer | added | J Asia | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 16, 2017 at 16:18 | comment | added | J Asia | These 2 points should set this clear: The Wanping (or Marco Polo Bridge) Incident and China's appeal to the League of Nations in 1938 - pdf, pg 17 onwards. | |
| Sep 16, 2017 at 15:56 | comment | added | Tom Au | @Greg: You need to "own" the country to execute civilians "legally." The unspoken question was were the Japanese acting within the rules of war? As JAsia pointed out in a comment. By selection 3, he opined that the Japanese were worse than the Nazis fighting partisans in the Soviet Union (case 1). That was the answer I wanted. | |
| Sep 16, 2017 at 15:45 | comment | added | J Asia | @TomAu - The latter IMHO. But this stuff can be inflammatory. In any case, there was this question -- which is quite close to your current question. If you still want more info, maybe I can share more via chat? Don't want to provoke anyone. | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 8:37 | comment | added | Greg | How is this relevant anyway? You don't need to own the whole country to execute citizens | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 1:25 | comment | added | Tom Au | @T.E.D.: Two and three are mutually exclusive; three is (somewhat) rational; two is just "irrational" by military standards. Three can also exist in combination with one. | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 1:24 | comment | added | Tom Au | @JAsia: Another statement of my question, did the Japanese do these things because they regarded China as their "oyster," even the parts they did not control, or did they do this as part of a "rational" occupation strategy? | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 0:55 | comment | added | congusbongus | Why not a bit of all three? I have to agree with other commenters, not sure what exactly you're trying to ask here. | |
| Sep 14, 2017 at 19:31 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackHistory/status/908412807808475137 | ||
| Sep 14, 2017 at 19:23 | comment | added | J Asia | @TomAu - Any particular operation/battle event (and onwards)? | |
| Sep 14, 2017 at 19:18 | comment | added | Tom Au | @JAsia: added "later stages", meaning, say, 1941-1943 (before the 1944 offensive). And World War II excludes early action in say, Manchuria. | |
| Sep 14, 2017 at 19:17 | history | edited | Tom Au | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 14, 2017 at 19:13 | history | edited | J Asia |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 14, 2017 at 19:08 | comment | added | J Asia | Not quite sure what perspective you're asking from. Is it tactics or strategy? The China campaign started in 1931, so this is in the final stages, hence a bit difficult to breakout the strands and figure out how to answer this. | |
| Sep 14, 2017 at 18:44 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | Note sure there is a huge difference between the three. | |
| Sep 14, 2017 at 16:26 | history | asked | Tom Au | CC BY-SA 3.0 |