Brian,

I agree with your analysis in principle, however you've made some generalisations that are not supportable,"It is now an established scientific fact that every one of us is capable of torturing another human to death", nearly all of us perhaps,but not all, no experiment could establish that claim. Also the fact that the Japanese were "beaten" did not appear to be obvious to the militarists in Tokyo as they were still preparing to resist invasion. There is, in principle, a justification for informing an ignorant Japanese public of the barbarism of their armed forces in WW2 since the Japanese, amazingly, see themselves as victims. The Pacific War did not consist entirely of US air raids on Japan.

Your article seems to suggest that citizens of totalitarian states who commit atrocities can use a "cultural" defence eg. the Japanese in WW2, or "I was just obeying orders." Is this defence less effective for citizens of democracies? Perhaps we need to distinguish between (1)an "unjust war" such as the attack on Iraq, when all acts by the aggressor are necessarily atrocities and (2) unjust conduct in a "just war",such as WW2.

As to the fairness of contemporary war crime prosecutions, justice is usually the 'justice' of the victor.

I lived in Japan for nearly two years. Prior to that I indulged in Martial Arts. Many of the things that I was interested in my family had to call in GrandMa and GrandPa for to pull out the old dictionaries in order to answer my enquiries.

Still, the old people remember well the brutality of their own historical warlords, but with their concept of public face, the fact that they do not project this out for all to see is something which ought not be surprising.

Yes, the family heirloom blades, along with their history and method of caring for and handling of same is handed down still, in my experience.

So, for many Japanese, the worlds arguably worst example of WMD abuse on children and old folk alike was no different from the local Daimyo cutting the head off the farmer who refused to bow.

Alas the Children of the Sun God, superior to all others, certainly did cop a dose of it.

And yet, in my experience, and this is a generalism only, the males still stand over and suppress their women by our standards, and little compassion or empathy for animals do they have.

"Ordinary men become brutalised when placed in brutal circumstances."

Hardly accurate when considering many of the acts of self-sacrafice carried out by men in brutal circumsatances.

Having spoken to a number of ex-prisoners of war in WWW2, it seems that it was often the bigger guys in the prison camps who suffered the most, as they would often sacrafice themselves and do more of the harder work to help save the smaller guys.

The author has written this article in an attempt to label all "men” as being brutal.

(this is merely my personal opinion - I am not a scientist)

I think human beings - all human beings - both women and men - young and old - all colours and creeds, are just as capable of being merciless and ruthless given enough reason.

We are (apparently) civilized, and yet we are still pack/group/social (whatever you want to call it) animals at our core. Many of us will fight to the death for those we love and go to extraordinary lengths to avenge the wrongs done to ourselves or those we see as being important to us.

In more expanded situations, such as war, human beings naturally unite under a common cause and move as one against a common enemy. I thinks it's part self preservation and part protection of the clan/tribe/pack - we become automatically patriotic and form a bond inside our minds with any who align themselves with the same beliefs and desired outcomes.

If the 'sense of belonging' is not aroused through patriotism then it might be religion, sexuality, ethnicity etc - either way, once people fall in behind a leader of some sort or feel they have been grossly wronged, many of us, I believe, are very capable of moving past our moral restraints and have the capacity to do things we would never have dreamed possible.

Whether it's hate, revenge, spite, power or control, human beings are the most capable of all living things to be the most ruthless animals the world has even known. Not only do the history books tell us so - but the state of this planet is a perfect example.

Thankyou for a thought provoking article Brian. I can understand where you are coming from, but I do think that it is worth pursuing those who commit human rights abuses in international courts of laws, despite the financial cost and the cost to the innocent families of such people even years later.

Hopefully such a court would take into consideration all the factors that leads a person to commit such deeds. Of course all humans are capable of being monsters, but I don't think that our 'animal' instinctive nature exonerates us even in terrible circumstances.

I heard a interview with a young man who was kidnapped and forced into the rape gangs in Darfur. He pretended to rape a child to save himself and at the first opportunity escaped, though he may have been safer to stay with the gang, as he will be hunted by them. He made a good choice. Others in the group with anquish may have raped the child to stop themselves being murdered and didn't have the courage or opportunity to escape and may still be there. Regretfully others may have enjoyed the opportunity to be monsters and won't flee as they are enjoying the power that comes from causing pain and distress. There are differences in how people treat one another from a position of power and everyone is personally responsible for how they act in such a situation. We are not pre-programmed robots.

One day hopefully for the victims sake these men will have to face their choices, and the victims will see some justice which may help with their healing. It might also act in some way to prevent further atocrities if those up the hieracy know that one day they may face a court. The knowledge that such courts are out there might even constrain the actions those at the bottom of the chain who are committing the atrocities if publised enough.

It's disappointing that word numbers prevent a detailed refutation of some of Holden's selective assumptions. He seems to rely more on a generalised view of public opinion than on documented history and an appreciation of the public sentiments contemporaneous with the events he uses as illustrations.
He also reveals some confusion about opportunistic revenge and justice. It is best illustrated by his attempts to ameliorate the savagery of the average Japanese soldier in WW2 as being inherited and cultural. Yet a normally tranquil and business-like Malay villager who has seen his entire family butchered for entertainment is committing a heinous act of revenge if he has the opportunity because he has a cultural heritage significantly different from his antagonist.
Holden is selective in his historical toe-dipping and resorts only to a few modern historical events. He avoids the unprovoked rapine, pillage, torture and slaughter committed at Nanking and Shanghai by the IJA in China. He is apparently unaware of the dreadful medical vivisection of hundreds of POWs and Chinese civilians by Japanese medical units specifically set up to evaluate the many experiments including germ and poison gas warfare on entire towns.
It is puzzling that so little attention is paid to the prevailing sentiment of the time. Some social commentators by evincing a lofty arm's length approach manage to soften the immediacy of the terror, the carnage and the perpetrator's savagery and with pious self-indulgence pronounce the revenge-takers and the justice-seekers as ignoble and decrepit in expressing their outrage.
The decency, compassion and sense of justice of the Allies in WW2 stands in shining contrast to the attitudes of the Axis powers in all theatres of that war.
In the first 3 months of the Allied occupation of Japan not one civilian was killed by an Allied soldier. Imagine if the situation had been reversed.
Holden seems intent on rewriting history and painting himself as an enlightened figurehead of social commentators. Only an ignorance of the facts and details of history enable him to do this.