Search results for query: *

And they did it at least twice: after the Meiji Restoration and after WWII.

Yup, like I said a few pages before, brutality was par for course in pre-WWII Japanese society.

Yes. Also, loyalty was shifted to the figure of the Emperor(note that doesn't necessarily mean the Emperor himself).

Not by the time the US found itself there.

Not just by it(around 2.5 million dead and the deliberate social re-engineering of Japanese society also played large roles), but yes, in part.

Japanese society accepted(still does, in some ways) a level of brutality towards each other that is shocking to most people nowadays, and that is a big part of what made them, well, them. What they did to others, they were fully capable of doing to themselves - and in some cases had done it to...

No, not at all. In fact, the IJN(usually) pretty much didn't care whether you slaughtered your prisoners like the second wartime commander of I-8 or fished enemy combatants from the water like the crew of Inazuma did.

Very few are left - someone that served in Unit 731 or another hospital where people did their thing on helpless people would have been born in the early-to-mid-1920s, and the doctors would have almost certainly been born in the 1910s. This means they would now be in their late 90s or in their...

Not sure whether this is addressed to me or not, but my point wasn't that he was ignorant(although I doubt that people showed him the details of the fall of Nanjing, for example); it was that he was a pushover, just as he was raised to be. Hirohito was supposed to be a rubber-stamp for the...

It's more complicated than that; as far as I can tell, the Emperor had formal power, enough that he can be cast as a willing participant - the Meiji Constitution had been inspired in the German Imperial one, and they gave not inconsequential powers to the Emperor. The thing is, like in Germany...