Why, in the US, is Japanese brutality ignored compared with the Nazi brutality in WW2?

Japan had "The East Asia co-prosperity zone" unlike the 3rd Reich which really did believe in all that Aryan Supremo stuff.

I've travelled throughout East Asia but not Japan. I'm talking "hippie travel" too not 5 star hotels or Government employ and lived there for 6 months.

The History is taught the way it is I think because this was truly an "honest War" with no quarter given by either side...so simply "bookending" does pretty much inform the average bloke.

If you want to know what really happened the two must reads are War without Mercy and Eugene Sledge's epochal account of what it meant to be a Marine. (Wearing teeth around your neck, skulls for candleholders....that kind of thing.)

Nimitz versus MacArthur and "divided command" is very worthy of research. My old Prof Richard Spector has written a lot on this...all of it wrong but still good reading.

From the Japanese pov I'd say Godzilla...but like I said their whole History and Culture is truly a mystery to me.

Neither Japan nor the USA wants to relive this War...and it was truly a fight to the death unlike any other so if you want to find out more imho you're on your own on this one.

London bridge attacks with 8 killed from few weeks ago made it to the front pages in the west. Kabul bombing, which death toll reached to 150 did not.

It is all in human nature, first we care about what happens to us personally, then comes close family, followed by friends, then neighbors, people living in the same town, same country, same culture.

Also the National Socialists atrocities toward Jews are center of attention in USA, because those research were funded by Jewish community in the USA. They were willing to grant scholarships to young historians studying holocaust. Over the time those historians were getting tenures at the universities, writing books, teaching courses, influencing peers. In few decades every university have at least one professor specializing in the Holocaust.

While of course Holocaust was special, during the WW2 about 80 million died. There were also other similar events in the world history: belgian rule over Congo, Polpot rule over Cambodia, Mao, holodomor, Armenian genocide. If you put them all together they don't get even half of the acknowledgment the Holocaust have.

I would suggest that Western "guilt" over the A-bomb helped to gloss over Japanese atrocities,a phenomenon not limited to the USA. I grew up in post war UK, and as a child thought Germans had horns and tails, whilst I do not remember believing the same about the Japanese.

Question:
Why, in the US, is Japanese brutality ignored compared with the Nazi brutality in WW2?

Short Answer:

Although the United States did conduct Japanese War Crimes trials in Tokyo following the war(Tokyo War Crimes Trials). A series of political decisions and global events in the 40's worked to mitigate and suppress US public knowledge of the complete scope of Japans War Crimes.

The conscious decision on the behalf of US for these actions had to do with expediency, mounting difficulty, perceived US interest, political complications, and finally the lack of domestic public interest to continue to pursue War Crimes after the compromised Tokyo Trials were concluded.

1. When the United States decided not to try the Japanese Emperor of War crimes in order to facilitate and smooth the way for occupation, it served to limit initial prosecutions (limited events, and perpetrators investigated and prosecutions pursued). Emperor Hirohito and other Royal family members became a kind of protected class which the occupation forces including the war crimes prosecutors worked to protect. Other Royals and their crimes were not prosecuted for fear of implicating the Emperor. This served to stifle US public knowledge of Japanese atrocities.

2. Shortly after WWII ended, The Chinese civil war re-ignited (June of 1946). This made prosecution of Japanese war crimes difficult, counter to American interests, and politically / legally more complicated.

3. Beginning of 1949, China a primary venue of unprosecuted war crimes withdrew from the world community reducing access to important witnesses and sites of these crimes. This further served to make renewed interest in prosecutions and knowledge unavailable.

Detailed Answer

A series of political decisions and global events worked to mitigate and suppress US public opinion over Japanese War Crimes. There are a litany of unrelated reasons and motivations for this occurrence and none of them have to do with Japanese military not meriting such attention.

1. Expediency
   Decision to not try the Emperor Hirohito, and need to shore up US public opinion
   At the end of WWII the Truman administration (General MacArthur) did something which was incredible unpopular domestically. They declined to prosecute Emperor Hirohito of Japan for war crimes. "Many historians believe" the Emperor directly responsible for many of the war crimes committed by Japanese forces during WWII. Japanese ministers were tried and executed for carrying out the Emperor's policies. The Truman administration took this unpopular step because they believed it would make Japan easier to occupy in the post WWII years. Unfortunately for the Truman administration most Americans during WWII and immediately following held the Japanese Emperor chiefly responsible for the US involvement in WWII and the primary villain of that war, not Hitler. Japan had attacked the United States not Germany and Japan was the focus of American Nationalism which transformed the country from a systemic isolationist country with an army about the size of Portugal or Belgium, into the Arsenal of Democracy. A super power with 18 million men under arms at the end of WWII. One approach the Truman administration used to combat public outrage over this decision was to downplay Japanese atrocities domestically. The Emperor was represented as a figure head with no real power over Japanese policy, not the leader who played an instrumental and visceral role in conducting these atrocities.

In order to enable this pragmatic decision the United States undermined their own Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Basically cherry picking prosecutions and war crimes events in order to not implicate the Emperor.

Japanese War Crimes
Emperor Hirohito and all members of the imperial family implicated in the war such as Prince Chichibu, Prince Asaka, Prince Takeda and Prince Higashikuni were exonerated from criminal prosecutions by MacArthur, with the help of Bonner Fellers who allowed the major criminal suspects to coordinate their stories so that the Emperor would be spared from indictment. Some historians criticize this decision. According to John Dower, "with the full support of MacArthur's headquarters, the prosecution functioned, in effect, as a defense team for the emperor"

2. Difficulty
   The allies signed a peace treaty with Japan Sept 2nd, 1945. In June of 1946, the US negotiated cease fire between Chinese nationalist army, or the Kuomintang, and the CCP Red Army collapsed leading to an all out civil war re-erupting in China. This meant that investigators could not travel to the sites of Japanese atrocities, and witnesses were more difficult to interview.

3. Counter to US Perceived Interest
   Japanese military and intelligence experts on China, who were principle targets of atrocity trials became invaluable American resources in this new front on the war against communism. Japan had been at war in China for a decade and their expertise and knowledge of China was tapped by the US just as German Russian and technology experts were recruited by the US after VE Day.

4. Politically / Legally Complicated
   February 28th Incident 1947, US allied Kuomintang or Nationalist Chinese Army slaughtered 18-28,000 protesters in Taiwan. This made refocusing the American public's attention on Japanese atrocities problematic. As the American administration was trying to form American public opinion behind the Nationalist Chinese Army. Keeping Japanese atrocities alive meant risking public condemnation of America's principle ally in China's civil war.

5. Lack of public call for prosecution after 1949.
   As China withdrew from the world stage into isolation after the Communists came to power Jan 1949. Their lack of participation in the international community also muted public knowledge of Japanese war atrocities for decades. This played a significant role in war crimes not being revisited after the Chinese civil war. That and Japan's growing importance to the US it faced wars in Korea and Vietnam each of which demonstrated Japan as an important theatre ally.

Background:

I would note that Japan was every bit as brutal as the Nazi's were in WWII to civilians and defenseless people who came under their control. That Japan crimes against civilians in China and across the Pacific merited every condemnation shown by the allies against Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany killed as many as 18 million defenseless people. Including Jews, Russian Civilians, POW's (mostly Russian), Poles, Roma (Gypsies), political opponents, the disabled, and h*m*sexuals.

Japan killed as many as 14 million defenseless people. These included POWs and civilians in the lands they seized across the pacific and primarily and importantly in China.

Japans war crimes include:

• Mass Murder (up to 10 million people),
• Attacks on neutral powers,
• Human experimentation
• biological warfare against civilians,
• use of chemical weapons,
• torture of POWs,
• execution and murder of captured allied airmen,
• cannibalism (systemic),
• forced labor,
• forced prostitution,
• looting
• perfidy (feigning surrender before attacking).

Sources:

• Japanese War Crimes
• Chinese Civil war Timeline
• Documenting Victims of Nazi Germany
• February 28th Incident
• Kuomintang
• Emperor Hirohito

Alot of good answers so far but being this is more social science than provable facts, I would like to add a not so pretty point. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Americans and Europeans due to racism never viewed the Japanese and other Asians as fellow race members, therefore their acts were never shocking and didn't garner much attention. Much like horrific crimes happening in Africa to this day which won't get as much attention as a white on white crime would. As opposed to German crimes which were so shocking due their being perpetrated by fellow white Europeans.

I don't think America would have as easily dropped the bomb on Germany as they did on Japan given the opportunity.

I am not condoning racism. Its sad reality that we need to get over. But ignoring the fact that it exists doesn't help.

I would first like to ask the OP, Fixed Point, what years you went to highschool (or whatever grade(s) was taught WW2), and if possible, what American state you learned it in?

Myself, I went to 7th thru 11th grade in late 90's early 2000's in Florida, in a very small private christian school, where every book was a Beka book (you can look up that publisher, it's known for "erasing history in the fundamentalist christian perspective").

My experience was very similar to yours. A LOT about the German atrocities were taught (and the Russian commies' too!), but almost nothing about Japan. The only Japanese brutality I can for sure remember was taught was the Bataan Death March. Needless to say, when Wikipedia came out (2006 or so?) I was pretty unprepared.

To answer your question the way I see it: Germany's atrocities were committed throughout Europe, whereas Japan's atrocities were committed throughout East Asia and Pacifica. And keep in mind, China, Vietnam, and North Korea were enemies right after that (and still are in the eyes of the Pentagon). We also were at odds with Cambodia, Laos, and Indonesia. Our history books do not tend to sympathize with enemies.

And even more heinously, these regions are third world countries that the west simply does not care about as much as Europe (as measured by how much money and resources are sent there), despite the fact that these regions as a whole hold many, many more people.

Finally, do you know what France did after being liberated from the Nazis? They re-invaded Algeria and Indochina, slaughtering at least 315,000 more (and this was before USA's Vietnam War really started). Same thing with the Netherlands; just one year after the German occupation was lifted, they re-invaded Indonesia and slaughtered at least 100,000 more of them.

Ask yourself how anyone could do this after witnessing and experiencing the Nazi's treatment firsthand? I hate to say this, but race has something to do with it.

I'm not from the United States, but I'm from Australia, which is a fairly similar country. It's a former British colony that has a majority of people of European descent.

The history classes I took (around 1990-1994) were pretty much exclusively about European history. We learnt about things like the Norman conquest, the French revolution, the Franco-Prussian war, World War I, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and World War II.

The only cases of non-European history we learnt was about European colonialism, and about Australian history. The latter would have touched upon Australia fighting Japan, but only barely. There was a lot more emphasis on the European theatre than the Pacific one.

This decision not to cover non-European history would mean that Japanese atrocities against allied POWs would be only barely within the scope of history lessons, and other Japanese atrocities, such as the rape of Nanking or the policy of "Comfort Women" would be outside the scope of history lessons.

(Our school had "Asian studies" as a subject from about the second year of high school, but it was optional, not a core course)

The history of Western atrocities in China is often glossed over: this would not be possible without also glossing over Japanese atrocities in China.

The Japanese atrocities of war in the Pacific are easy to forget because of Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bookends receive much more attention than the books. It is ironic considering more Germans died in Dresden than did Japanese in either of the nukes. Stalin would be another distraction.

The Japanese downplay their vices, while the Germans crucify themselves for what their parents did. The state of Israel and the European Union are both direct responses to German atrocities in WWII that remain active in the public consciousness. Japan on the other hand glosses over its atrocities, which is easier to do in their Buddhist/Taoist culture than in Christian Germany. The Chinese are very conscious of Japanese atrocities. It is only the west that has forgotten.

Two reasons are that the Japanese brutality was less "comprehensive" than the German brutality, and also less incongruous with the American image of Japan.

Instances of Japanese brutality against Chinese, and other civilian groups are well documented. For all that, they appeared to be at least somewhat "random." That is to say, there was no comprehensive plan to "concentrate" and eventually exterminate one or more groups of people, as was the case in Nazi Germany.

Japan was noted for its brutal treatment of prisoners of war (POW), but this was more understandable in the Japanese, than German context. The Japanese preached (and practiced) a samurai code that being captured was a huge disgrace, and that a POW was essentially a "dead man walking." At Tarawa, for instance, only 17 out of something like 2600 soldiers were captured alive (a larger proportion of civilian laborers). Thus, their maltreatment of other POWs could be dismissed as "that's the way they are; they treat themselves that way" (fight to the death or commit suicide, but are almost never taken prisoner).

On the other hand, the Germans surrendered in meaningful numbers, and sought Geneva convention treatment for POWs that surrendered to western powers (Britain or the United States). Their observance of the Geneva convention with this group, while they mistreated eastern (Polish and Russian) POWs, was seen as hypocritical.

Also, America knew pre-World War II Germany as a modern, European country with fine musicians and artist and numerous Nobel Prize winners, while they didn't know what to make of "newly arrived" Japan. Put another way, Germany had much more of a reputation to live up to (or fall down from).

I am fortunate in being 75 years of age. I travelled extensively during my 22 years in the British Royal Navy and have spoken over the years, to many people of various nationalities. One should remember that each country writes it's own history and therefore it is bound to suffer from at least some bias. The best education about the WW2 subjects mentioned in this thread is not found in the school classrooms, but by travel and speaking to the people who actually experienced WW2 in all it's horrors. Russian, German, Japanese, US and UK all committed WW2 "war crimes" according to the Geneva Convention then in force. Only losers get charged remember, and some countries weren't signatories to it anyway, so were not bound by it's conventions or rules. War has never had Marquis of Queensbury Rules I assure you. Some countries are more brutal or ruthless at war than others but all are guilty of excesses.

The nature of Nazi and Japanese atrocities is quite different.

The Japanese atrocities, when ordered from above, were "rational" in the sense that they were perpetrated to gain a perceived tangible benefit for the war effort (please do not misconstrue my words to mean that I condone these actions! I do not!) The most appalling crimes, such as the rape of Nanking, were random violence of foot soldiers unchecked by their superiors (which, of course, does not exculpate those superiors!). As @Histophile put it (in a comment), the "Japanese brutality was a component of their accepted form of warfare" - the total war where no quarters is given and no quarters is asked for. In other words, the Japanese atrocities were NOT historically unusual.

The Nazi atrocities were "counterproductive" in the sense that they actually harmed their war effort and "systematic" in the sense that they were done in a top-down organized manner:

• Killing Jews instead of putting them to work (slave labor is inefficient and even that was not used as widely as it could have been); giving higher priority to the trains carrying Jews to death camps than to trains with troops and war materiel; sending death squads against peaceful civilians instead of guerrillas.

• Starving/freezing to death about 3M Soviet POWs in 1941 - instead of offering them to fight as collaborators (they started to do that later in the war, but it was far too late).

In other words, the Nazi atrocities were historically unusual.

I think that this difference (unusually "systematic" & "counterproductive" vs commonly "random" & "rational") explains the extra attention that the Nazi crimes receive over the Japanese ones.

PS. It is interesting to compare the behavior of Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war (and WW1) and the WW2. In the former Japan was striving to be accepted as an equal by the Europeans, so they meticulously adhered to the European codes of treating POW. In the latter they already thought themselves above Europe (feeling snubbed at Versailles & League of Nations) and they reverted to the Bushido approach of "surrender as the ultimate dishonor", so they treated POWs as subhumans precisely because they were POWs.

The Germans treated the Western POWs conventionally and the Russian POWs about as horribly as the Japanese treated all POWs. The basis of mistreatment - nationality vs "violation of knightly ideals" might contribute to the difference of perception too.

PPS. In response to a commenter saying "not Nazi but Germans, Nazi is not a country like Japan": this is actually a good commentary on the question itself. Nazi Germany is considered by many to be an aberration in the long and noble history of the German people. No such term exists for Japan (although the Soviet historiography talked about "Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Militarist Japan"). This reflects the general observation I made: what happened in Germany in the 1930-ies and 1940-ies was historically unusual, while the same period in Japan was much less different from the historical patterns there.