British people... Why my country (Japan) killed so many British soldiers...?

Question

WWII.... why my country killed so many British soldiers and the UK killed..... few japaneses soldiers?.... why?
Japan won the WWII against the UK.

Answer 1

Isn't it all rather in the past?

Answer 2

Takihiro-chan

Dozo. Some numbers for you:

Burma Campaign. Deaths by side.
British Commonwealth 13000
Empire of Japan 144000

New Guinea. Deaths by side.
Australia 5442
Empire of Japan 30200

So, it seems that your information is incorrect. Neh??

Granted, at the onset, when Japan attacked Hong Kong and Singapore, the Commonwealth losses were higher than those of the Japanese but never went anywhere as high as the above. Please read accurate history books, not manga.
Wakarimasuka??

A correction to a previous answer. American soldiers did fight in Burma. Look up the the story of Merril's Marauders (US Army's 5307th Composite Unit) . Also, most of the supply to the forces opposing the Japanese was done by the US Army Air Force from bases in India and China. And Bouncerbobtail needs to brush up in his history. The battles fought by the British, as stated before, were no less important than those of the island hopping campaign done by the USMC and US Army. See the figures above. Although Britain did have the European Theatre priority, nevertheless alloted important troop numbers to the Burma Campaign and the quality of these forces was never second rate (I wouldn't dare call unimportant the Black Watch, the Glosters, the Royal Marines, etc.). As to the US vs Japan losses, the pattern seen in the British C vs Japan losses is similar, except for Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Nevertheless, the American forces always had the upper hand.

Answer 3

Because your country had the idea that surrendering was not for soldiers. So when the British in Singapore surrendered because they had no chance of fighting they were then treated as slaves by your people instead of prisoners. Japanese soldiers would fight to the death. the difference was the culture and because the British prisoners of the Japanese were badly treated and starved they died. Now put the past behind, which is something that some of the ex prisoners here can not do, and get on with your life.

Answer 4

Japanese culture was very militarised and nationalistic. In its own idiosyncratic way Japan was extremely fascist, but with Shinto, and the god like status of the emperor, this fascism regarded any culture that didn't carry out its duty to death as so shameful that death was preferable.

British soldiers came from a different culture where enemy combatants who had fought well where treated with respect.

Thus when British soldiers where captured they expected to be treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention, whereas Japanese soldiers considered their actions to be so shameful that death was preferable. Therefore they treated captured soldiers with utter contempt and starved them and worked them to death building railways etc.

BOUNCER BOBTAIL
Your understanding of WWII is typically American 'British soldiers hardly fought the Japanese'

It might interest you to know that the heaviest defeat inflicted on Japanese forces during WWII was at the battle of Imphal on the Burmese/Indian border when a combined Indian British force destroyed four Japanese divisions inflicting over 55,000 casualties. But no American soldier ever set foot in Burma so it doesn't count does it?

Answer 5

Uk troops in Singapore were not prepared to meet the Japanese advance- although the commanders there had requested reinforcements, the European theatre was more important at the time, so the Japanese army took the city with relative ease. That is not the fault of the men at Singapore, who fought bravely. Sikh brigade bayonet charges at the time showed British Empire troops in equal combat were superior to the Japanese. Womenfolk evacuated to India successfully.



Japan's success in the first stages of the war was down to surprise- but the Japanese army was unable to hold what it took in the Pacific, in present day Indonesia, in mainland China. Guerilla fighting on Timor prevents Nippongun reaching Australia. 90% casulties of personnel fleeing Burma to India due to Jungle hazards, not Japanese. Japanese never eliminate Chindit guerillas, and British counter-attack from India retakes Burma in 1945. British aircraft carriers have steel decks which neutralises Kamikaze pilots.

Japanese army wins the first few rounds, but lost the last ones- that's not a victory. WWII wasn't just UK vs Nippon anyway, pointless to reduce it to that.

Incidentally- my father was at Singapore, although non-combatant, still worked as a slave for the Japanese army 1942-45. He forgave the Japanese after the war- reported much brutality, but some mercy, long story...

Answer 6

Sorry but your understanding of history is incorrect. Not many British troops even fought against Japan. The troops were mostly American. The British main interest was in protecting India which was done successfully with a small number of British troops supported by some Indian volunteers.

In direct combat Amercian and Japenese losses were about even. Added to that Japan lost a huge number of troops to bombing, naval bombardment and submarine attack. The Japanese high command cared so little for Japanese soldiers lives that Japanese troop ships were often unprotected.

Answer 7

Believe it or not, but just as Western powers were racist against Asiatic peoples prior to the outbreak of war in 1941, the Japanese were just as racist against the Imperialist powers.

Japanese military culture was based upon Bushido. Based around loyalty and honour. It was against the principle of Bushido to surrender to ones enemies. Thus the Japanese thought of those British and American soldiers who did surrender as cowards, with no honour etc. Not unlike how Hitler viewed the Jews.

Japan had been involved in war since their invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and after invading mainland China in 1937, and war with the USA and Britain at the end of 1941, Japanese resources were fairly stretched. Japan's own economy was pretty weak, and allied prisoners of war were a burden she did not wish to carry. Prisoners require food, shelter and attention. Resources that Japan wanted to use elsewhere.

So prisoners of war were both seen as cowards without honour, as well as a burden that could not be carried. This goes someway to explain why they treated their prisoners very badly.

Japanese troops rarely surrendered, not because they were "better soldiers" but rather because they believed to do so,would be dishonourable, not only to themselves but to their family. Japanese troops also questioned the wisdom of surrenden, since they had initiated the war, they felt they possibly would be treated badly, especially since they had no respect for their own prisoners. The Japanese government also misled their own people, and it is more than likely that troop commanders warned their troops of the horrors that awaited them if they did surrender - torture by American or British troops.

Answer 8

Read and heed what Snodders says.
It is all in the past and we all get on with life but I think that if you read an unbiased history book you will find that the Japanese treated the British soldiers very badly instead of treating them as prisoners of war.

Answer 9

If Japan won WW 2 like you claim how come they surrendered after the dropping of the second atom bomb at Nagasaki some how I don't think surrender is winning

Answer 10

maximum historians agreed that Hitler substitute into racism and dealt with Britain like his very own brother with the comparable Anglo Saxon race. He enable Britain get away against generic suggestion because of the fact he needed to furnish Britain of project to barter for peace. Then after Hitler did not get any reaction, he found out his massive mistake by potential of injecting his emotion into conflict, yet he in no way admitted his blunders in front of his Generals .he then pursued with the conflict of england. It confirmed Hitler substitute into not monster adequate to kill or seize all British in Dunkirk. If he did, he might somewhat land in Britain and in all threat win international conflict II.

Answer 11

Because of all the supah-samurai ninjas who can dodge bullets, jump higher than planes and cut tanks in half with their katanas. :-p

Seriously though, as far as I know, England was mainly fighting Germany during that war, so few of our soldiers would have been sent to Japan.