Was there a Japanese equivalent of the Gestapo during WW2
Colonial Japanese rule on occupied territories has been described as harsh as has been their treatment of prisoners of war. In some cases, this was not a fleeting occupation but one lasting years or decades. Surely, not all of the people in these areas agreed with this treatment and there must have been measures to enforce Japanese laws. There are many parallels drawn with their allies in Nazi Germany. Was there a Japanese equivalent of the Gestapo (or Secret Police)? Did they operate in the Japanese home islands or only in colonial territories?
world-war-two japan police
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
add a comment |
Colonial Japanese rule on occupied territories has been described as harsh as has been their treatment of prisoners of war. In some cases, this was not a fleeting occupation but one lasting years or decades. Surely, not all of the people in these areas agreed with this treatment and there must have been measures to enforce Japanese laws. There are many parallels drawn with their allies in Nazi Germany. Was there a Japanese equivalent of the Gestapo (or Secret Police)? Did they operate in the Japanese home islands or only in colonial territories?
world-war-two japan police
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
The Kenpeitai operated both at home and in the occupied territories.
– dtcm840
Dec 9 '18 at 6:06
add a comment |
Colonial Japanese rule on occupied territories has been described as harsh as has been their treatment of prisoners of war. In some cases, this was not a fleeting occupation but one lasting years or decades. Surely, not all of the people in these areas agreed with this treatment and there must have been measures to enforce Japanese laws. There are many parallels drawn with their allies in Nazi Germany. Was there a Japanese equivalent of the Gestapo (or Secret Police)? Did they operate in the Japanese home islands or only in colonial territories?
world-war-two japan police
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
Colonial Japanese rule on occupied territories has been described as harsh as has been their treatment of prisoners of war. In some cases, this was not a fleeting occupation but one lasting years or decades. Surely, not all of the people in these areas agreed with this treatment and there must have been measures to enforce Japanese laws. There are many parallels drawn with their allies in Nazi Germany. Was there a Japanese equivalent of the Gestapo (or Secret Police)? Did they operate in the Japanese home islands or only in colonial territories?
world-war-two japan police
world-war-two japan police
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
asked Dec 9 '18 at 5:49
Tom KellyTom Kelly
290110
290110
The Kenpeitai operated both at home and in the occupied territories.
– dtcm840
Dec 9 '18 at 6:06
add a comment |
The Kenpeitai operated both at home and in the occupied territories.
– dtcm840
Dec 9 '18 at 6:06
The Kenpeitai operated both at home and in the occupied territories.
– dtcm840
Dec 9 '18 at 6:06
The Kenpeitai operated both at home and in the occupied territories.
– dtcm840
Dec 9 '18 at 6:06
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Yes, that would be the Kenpeitai. It was a military police corps, founded in 1881. The kenpeitai had jurisdiction everywhere within the Japanese empire and their conquered territories.
Although it was a military police corps, everyone fell under their jurisdiction. Not just the military, civilians as well.
The naval equivalent was the Tokkeitai. Both units acted uniformed and in plain clothes. They were both known for their very harsh and brutal treatment of their victims. Both units were disbanded in august 1945.
The kenpeitai was much larger and under control of the army. The tokkeitai was smaller, under control of the navy, but just as brutal. Both were used by the military governments as an instrument of terror on their own population.
added: I think KeMpeitai, with an m, is correct. However, I don't speak Japanese. That's why I stick with Wikipedia's transcription of the name.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
6
It should be Kempeitai or Kempei Tai, not "Kenpeitai", i.e. M instead of N. I can see Wikipedia has it as N, but almost all official documents in English refers to this unit with an M. For instance, Government of Singapore on their experience during Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, 1941-5: link
– J Asia
Dec 9 '18 at 13:55
6
@JAsia it's the issue with Japanese romanization that ん in 憲兵隊 (けんぺいたい) can be read as either M or N...
– Andrew T.
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
1
@AndrewT. And it's usually transliterated as an 'n' because that's the perdominant pronunciation in most words. Depending on the word though, there's usually one form that's 'correct', though in some cases the actual sound may be somewhere between 'n' and 'm'.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Dec 9 '18 at 16:18
13
Which it is is largely systematic, depending on whether the following consonant is labial. But this is a stupid argument. Both written forms are used and there's no reason to chastize someone for using the form that's not the one you prefer.
– R..
Dec 9 '18 at 18:09
1
N is the Hepburn romanisation of ん so I think this is good for consistency with any documents using that.
– Tom Kelly
Dec 9 '18 at 22:22
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49855%2fwas-there-a-japanese-equivalent-of-the-gestapo-during-ww2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, that would be the Kenpeitai. It was a military police corps, founded in 1881. The kenpeitai had jurisdiction everywhere within the Japanese empire and their conquered territories.
Although it was a military police corps, everyone fell under their jurisdiction. Not just the military, civilians as well.
The naval equivalent was the Tokkeitai. Both units acted uniformed and in plain clothes. They were both known for their very harsh and brutal treatment of their victims. Both units were disbanded in august 1945.
The kenpeitai was much larger and under control of the army. The tokkeitai was smaller, under control of the navy, but just as brutal. Both were used by the military governments as an instrument of terror on their own population.
added: I think KeMpeitai, with an m, is correct. However, I don't speak Japanese. That's why I stick with Wikipedia's transcription of the name.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
6
It should be Kempeitai or Kempei Tai, not "Kenpeitai", i.e. M instead of N. I can see Wikipedia has it as N, but almost all official documents in English refers to this unit with an M. For instance, Government of Singapore on their experience during Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, 1941-5: link
– J Asia
Dec 9 '18 at 13:55
6
@JAsia it's the issue with Japanese romanization that ん in 憲兵隊 (けんぺいたい) can be read as either M or N...
– Andrew T.
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
1
@AndrewT. And it's usually transliterated as an 'n' because that's the perdominant pronunciation in most words. Depending on the word though, there's usually one form that's 'correct', though in some cases the actual sound may be somewhere between 'n' and 'm'.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Dec 9 '18 at 16:18
13
Which it is is largely systematic, depending on whether the following consonant is labial. But this is a stupid argument. Both written forms are used and there's no reason to chastize someone for using the form that's not the one you prefer.
– R..
Dec 9 '18 at 18:09
1
N is the Hepburn romanisation of ん so I think this is good for consistency with any documents using that.
– Tom Kelly
Dec 9 '18 at 22:22
|
show 1 more comment
Yes, that would be the Kenpeitai. It was a military police corps, founded in 1881. The kenpeitai had jurisdiction everywhere within the Japanese empire and their conquered territories.
Although it was a military police corps, everyone fell under their jurisdiction. Not just the military, civilians as well.
The naval equivalent was the Tokkeitai. Both units acted uniformed and in plain clothes. They were both known for their very harsh and brutal treatment of their victims. Both units were disbanded in august 1945.
The kenpeitai was much larger and under control of the army. The tokkeitai was smaller, under control of the navy, but just as brutal. Both were used by the military governments as an instrument of terror on their own population.
added: I think KeMpeitai, with an m, is correct. However, I don't speak Japanese. That's why I stick with Wikipedia's transcription of the name.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
6
It should be Kempeitai or Kempei Tai, not "Kenpeitai", i.e. M instead of N. I can see Wikipedia has it as N, but almost all official documents in English refers to this unit with an M. For instance, Government of Singapore on their experience during Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, 1941-5: link
– J Asia
Dec 9 '18 at 13:55
6
@JAsia it's the issue with Japanese romanization that ん in 憲兵隊 (けんぺいたい) can be read as either M or N...
– Andrew T.
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
1
@AndrewT. And it's usually transliterated as an 'n' because that's the perdominant pronunciation in most words. Depending on the word though, there's usually one form that's 'correct', though in some cases the actual sound may be somewhere between 'n' and 'm'.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Dec 9 '18 at 16:18
13
Which it is is largely systematic, depending on whether the following consonant is labial. But this is a stupid argument. Both written forms are used and there's no reason to chastize someone for using the form that's not the one you prefer.
– R..
Dec 9 '18 at 18:09
1
N is the Hepburn romanisation of ん so I think this is good for consistency with any documents using that.
– Tom Kelly
Dec 9 '18 at 22:22
|
show 1 more comment
Yes, that would be the Kenpeitai. It was a military police corps, founded in 1881. The kenpeitai had jurisdiction everywhere within the Japanese empire and their conquered territories.
Although it was a military police corps, everyone fell under their jurisdiction. Not just the military, civilians as well.
The naval equivalent was the Tokkeitai. Both units acted uniformed and in plain clothes. They were both known for their very harsh and brutal treatment of their victims. Both units were disbanded in august 1945.
The kenpeitai was much larger and under control of the army. The tokkeitai was smaller, under control of the navy, but just as brutal. Both were used by the military governments as an instrument of terror on their own population.
added: I think KeMpeitai, with an m, is correct. However, I don't speak Japanese. That's why I stick with Wikipedia's transcription of the name.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
Yes, that would be the Kenpeitai. It was a military police corps, founded in 1881. The kenpeitai had jurisdiction everywhere within the Japanese empire and their conquered territories.
Although it was a military police corps, everyone fell under their jurisdiction. Not just the military, civilians as well.
The naval equivalent was the Tokkeitai. Both units acted uniformed and in plain clothes. They were both known for their very harsh and brutal treatment of their victims. Both units were disbanded in august 1945.
The kenpeitai was much larger and under control of the army. The tokkeitai was smaller, under control of the navy, but just as brutal. Both were used by the military governments as an instrument of terror on their own population.
added: I think KeMpeitai, with an m, is correct. However, I don't speak Japanese. That's why I stick with Wikipedia's transcription of the name.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
edited Dec 10 '18 at 0:16
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
answered Dec 9 '18 at 6:55
JosJos
8,94412245
8,94412245
6
It should be Kempeitai or Kempei Tai, not "Kenpeitai", i.e. M instead of N. I can see Wikipedia has it as N, but almost all official documents in English refers to this unit with an M. For instance, Government of Singapore on their experience during Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, 1941-5: link
– J Asia
Dec 9 '18 at 13:55
6
@JAsia it's the issue with Japanese romanization that ん in 憲兵隊 (けんぺいたい) can be read as either M or N...
– Andrew T.
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
1
@AndrewT. And it's usually transliterated as an 'n' because that's the perdominant pronunciation in most words. Depending on the word though, there's usually one form that's 'correct', though in some cases the actual sound may be somewhere between 'n' and 'm'.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Dec 9 '18 at 16:18
13
Which it is is largely systematic, depending on whether the following consonant is labial. But this is a stupid argument. Both written forms are used and there's no reason to chastize someone for using the form that's not the one you prefer.
– R..
Dec 9 '18 at 18:09
1
N is the Hepburn romanisation of ん so I think this is good for consistency with any documents using that.
– Tom Kelly
Dec 9 '18 at 22:22
|
show 1 more comment
6
It should be Kempeitai or Kempei Tai, not "Kenpeitai", i.e. M instead of N. I can see Wikipedia has it as N, but almost all official documents in English refers to this unit with an M. For instance, Government of Singapore on their experience during Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, 1941-5: link
– J Asia
Dec 9 '18 at 13:55
6
@JAsia it's the issue with Japanese romanization that ん in 憲兵隊 (けんぺいたい) can be read as either M or N...
– Andrew T.
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
1
@AndrewT. And it's usually transliterated as an 'n' because that's the perdominant pronunciation in most words. Depending on the word though, there's usually one form that's 'correct', though in some cases the actual sound may be somewhere between 'n' and 'm'.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Dec 9 '18 at 16:18
13
Which it is is largely systematic, depending on whether the following consonant is labial. But this is a stupid argument. Both written forms are used and there's no reason to chastize someone for using the form that's not the one you prefer.
– R..
Dec 9 '18 at 18:09
1
N is the Hepburn romanisation of ん so I think this is good for consistency with any documents using that.
– Tom Kelly
Dec 9 '18 at 22:22
6
6
It should be Kempeitai or Kempei Tai, not "Kenpeitai", i.e. M instead of N. I can see Wikipedia has it as N, but almost all official documents in English refers to this unit with an M. For instance, Government of Singapore on their experience during Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, 1941-5: link
– J Asia
Dec 9 '18 at 13:55
It should be Kempeitai or Kempei Tai, not "Kenpeitai", i.e. M instead of N. I can see Wikipedia has it as N, but almost all official documents in English refers to this unit with an M. For instance, Government of Singapore on their experience during Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, 1941-5: link
– J Asia
Dec 9 '18 at 13:55
6
6
@JAsia it's the issue with Japanese romanization that ん in 憲兵隊 (けんぺいたい) can be read as either M or N...
– Andrew T.
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
@JAsia it's the issue with Japanese romanization that ん in 憲兵隊 (けんぺいたい) can be read as either M or N...
– Andrew T.
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
1
1
@AndrewT. And it's usually transliterated as an 'n' because that's the perdominant pronunciation in most words. Depending on the word though, there's usually one form that's 'correct', though in some cases the actual sound may be somewhere between 'n' and 'm'.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Dec 9 '18 at 16:18
@AndrewT. And it's usually transliterated as an 'n' because that's the perdominant pronunciation in most words. Depending on the word though, there's usually one form that's 'correct', though in some cases the actual sound may be somewhere between 'n' and 'm'.
– Austin Hemmelgarn
Dec 9 '18 at 16:18
13
13
Which it is is largely systematic, depending on whether the following consonant is labial. But this is a stupid argument. Both written forms are used and there's no reason to chastize someone for using the form that's not the one you prefer.
– R..
Dec 9 '18 at 18:09
Which it is is largely systematic, depending on whether the following consonant is labial. But this is a stupid argument. Both written forms are used and there's no reason to chastize someone for using the form that's not the one you prefer.
– R..
Dec 9 '18 at 18:09
1
1
N is the Hepburn romanisation of ん so I think this is good for consistency with any documents using that.
– Tom Kelly
Dec 9 '18 at 22:22
N is the Hepburn romanisation of ん so I think this is good for consistency with any documents using that.
– Tom Kelly
Dec 9 '18 at 22:22
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49855%2fwas-there-a-japanese-equivalent-of-the-gestapo-during-ww2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The Kenpeitai operated both at home and in the occupied territories.
– dtcm840
Dec 9 '18 at 6:06