Borealis

@NeMo Also, since I didn't ping you above, the cites you requested from the book are outlined in my previous reply.

@o.m. It appears the chat mistakenly pinged you, even though I swear I clicked on Ne Mo's reply. Either way, my above comment was not meant for you; apologies for the confusion. Regarding what you just said, I am aware of the quasi-feudal nature of Nazi leadership, but am not convinced by what you have said. I maintain that Japanese war crimes (and behaviour in general) was more "bottom-up" in comparison to the Nazis, which I would consider more "top-down".

On another note, why is my text not italicised? I thought the double underscore italicises?

@o.m. There is no direct cite to a journal entry or similar. In the notes section for this page, Beevor mentions some of the following:

@ItalianPhilosopher I don't want to get into a drawn-out discussion in the comment section about this, but my claim was not that "Japan was fond of war crimes". The point is that the value of a human life was extremely low in Japanese society, for cultural, social and pure population reasons. The basis of Japanese philosophy, to serve, and to serve unwaveringly, without regard for one's own life or those of others, will inevitably generate an attitude that results in actions we now call "war crimes". Especially coupled with Japanese ideas of racial superiority and divine favour.

@ItalianPhilosopher I disagree. Naturally, the further back you go, the less "rules" will be observable in European warfare. That being said, the 30 Years War was the exception, not the rule; lasting a very long time and fuelled by religious hatred, it is not comparable to other conflicts. Not to mention that, again, the 30 Years War is remembered as such; it is remembered to have been particularly brutal, cruel, and savage. It was not, in any way, "the norm", while no such distinctions are made for Japanese warfare during the same periods. As for your second comment...

@o.m. I've already discussed the Kriegsgerichtsbarkeitserlass and how it relates to the question in my answer. The Einsatzgruppen I wouldn't consider "bottom-up", even if within them, some crimes were "bottom-up"; these were "top-down" death squads created for the express purpose of extermination. Obviously, they would collect the most sadistic and aggressive of individuals for service and were beholden to different "rules" than regular units. Unless regular Wehrmacht behaviour was comparable (which, overall, it wasn't), I wouldn't consider their actions "bottom-up".

@ItalianPhilosopher WW1 and the Russo-Japanese War were exceptions due to Japanese ambitions about international recognition; the answer I linked explains this. Otherwise, Japanese conduct during the Boxer rebellion (which was not against European powers, like the other two conflicts), occupation of Korea, etc. all the way back to the 1592/7 invasion of Korea and war between different Japanese daimyos was reflective of how they behaved during WW2.

@Haridasa You just stated some baseless and unfounded preconceptions you have about the integrity of non-Hindu authors; there are highly acclaimed (e.g. for their impartiality) treatments of this subject matter from non-Hindu authors. Your third comment is the only relevant one: you want Hindu authors because you're a Hindu and so expect their version of the events to better coincide with your worldview. That's fine; everyone is entitled to read what they wish. Just don't pretend otherwise.

@NeMo If you want sources with a particular perspective, say that. In your Chile-Bolivia example, clearly if I'm looking for a Chilean source, I'm doing so because I want to see the Chilean perspective, not because I want an "unbiased" source. I would then ask for that. This has nothing to do with being a new user; it's not being disingenuous about what I want. Also, "new user"? He's been a user for about as long as me and has 5 questions, 2 of which were closed.

@Haridasa Which doesn't require a Hindu author. Your own biases are also coming through quite clearly; you'll trust a Hindu author to write about Hindu atrocities with the same vigour as British ones, but won't trust non-Hindu authors to do the same in the reverse direction.

@Haridasa Entirely irrelevant. If you actually wanted an unbiased source, the source's religion wouldn't be a factor in their selection.

"Unbiased" but "I prefer Hindu authors". Ok.