"Michael Starke" wrote in message
news:ly5Gb.439267$Dw6.1339032@attbi_s02...
The recent book by James Bradley, "Flyboys" spends many
pages trying to explain the reasons behind the cruel treatment
of American POW's by the Japanese.

He writes that the Japanese where perplexed at America's indignation
and contempt of the way the war in China was being waged
considering that the model they were following was America's treatment
of it's own indigenous people who, in some cases, were rounded
up and slaughtered. He also cites the poor treatment Philippinos got
by American forces after the Spanish occupation. Bradley says the
Japanese were not doing anything different than Americans
had done in the west.

The Japanese said the Geneva Convention rules did not apply to
Americans because they indiscriminately bombed civilians in
their raids on Japan.

I'd be interested in other opinions of "Flyboys" as I was somewhat
disappointed in sub-textural message of moral relativism that permeates
the book. We can't make moralistic determinations because we
all acted badly at some point in our history? I'm not sure I buy that.

"Flyboys" sounds like a load of ********.

The ' the Americans bombed Japanese civilians argument' hardly applies to
the Baatan death march victims and does not apply at all to commonwealth
prisoners, who were treated as badly (see Changi, Sandarkan death march,
etc).

The other arguments ignore the fact that the Japanese had shown earlier
(WW1) that they were quite capable of not behaving with total brutality.

The brutality was a policy decision on the part of the Japanese.