Future prime minister Shintaro Ishihara and why we should "whitewash" history

[McTojo]

Maciamo covered the other points quite well so...




I've given you a fairly detailed discourse on why I think it is not in Japan's best interest to rearm and did so using common sense. I have presented the basic downward spiral of an arms build-up actually making a country less secure - it might not be the intent of Japanese leaders, but I contend it would be the effect (it can be argued China is trying to beat Japan out of the blocks on this account if anyone has been reading the papers recently...) . In the end, the effect is what is going to get you...

Instead of blanket comments about "best interest" and "not about creating instability" I would welcome very strongly a well structured argument in favor of Japan becoming an active military power again, specifically the benefits such actions would bring to Japan, the international community, and East Asia.

No country needs a broad international consensus to rearm itself Mandlion unless it's nuclear weapons we are talking about. Benefits have nothing to do with Japan being fully armed & cocked. It's a nations soveriegn right to arm itself in order to protect itself from foreign aggression. It's in Japan best interest to be a better member of the Japan/U.S. security alliance. There's nothing blanket about that Mandylion. For a nation to willfully remain pacifist and dependent on another nation for its security is woefully irresponsible no matter how you logically try to spin it in your favor.

 

[Maciamo]

For a nation to willfully remain pacifist and dependent on another nation for its security is woefully irresponsible no matter how you logically try to spin it in your favor.

Do you know that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are already the 4th biggest budget of any army in the world after the US, China and France. Moreover, Japan is far from being unique for having US troops stationed on its land. As I have explained in this thread, there are over 230,000 US troops stationed in 130 countries around the world. That means that few countries (probably the "enemies" of the USA) do not have US troops on their land. There are 117,000 US soldiers stationed in Europe, including 75,600 in Germany, compared to only 45,000 US soldiers in Japan and 37,500 in South Korea. Considering the USA's tremendous technological advantage, it would be foolish for a country that can benefit from their protection not to take it. What's more, US soldiers buy many goods and services around where they are stationed. Even the most anti-US Okinawans think twice about asking US troops to leave, as it would seriously blow the local economy.

I personally don't care whether US troops stay in Japan or not. It does not directly affect me. I also don't understand why people like you make such a big deal of it. Why is it that the Japanese always find all kinds of crimes or misdeeds committed by US forces, while we never hear similar stories in Europe? Germany (pop. 80m => 1 US soldier per 1,050 pers.) has proportionally 2.8x more US troops per inhabitant on its soil than Japan (pop. 128m => 1 US soldier per 2,850 pers.), but nobody seems to complain.

If you haven't done it yet, you may be interested in reading the thread Why are U.S forces still in Japan ?

 

[McTojo]

Do you know that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are already the 4th biggest budget of any army in the world after the US, China and France? Moreover, Japan is far from being unique in having US troops stationed on its land. As I have explained in this thread, there are over 230,000 US troops stationed in 130 countries around the world. That means that few countries (probably the "enemies" of the USA) do not have US troops on their land. There are 117,000 US soldiers stationed in Europe, including 75,600 in Germany, compared to only 45,000 US soldiers in Japan and 37,500 in South Korea. Considering the USA's tremendous technological advantage, it would be foolish for a country that can benefit from their protection not to take it. Moreover, US soldiers buy many goods and services around where they are stationed. Even the most anti-US Okinawans think twice about asking US troops to leave, as it would seriously blow the local economy.

I personally don't care whether US troops stay in Japan or not. It does not directly affect me. I also don't understand why people like you make such a big deal of it. Why is it that the Japanese always find all kinds of crimes or misdeeds committed by US forces, while we never hear similar stories in Europe? Germany (pop. 80m => 1 US soldier per 1,050 pers.) has proportionally 2.8x more US troops per inhabitant on its soil than Japan (pop. 128m => 1 US soldier per 2,850 pers.), but nobody seems to complain.

If you haven't done it yet, you may be interested in reading the thread Why are U.S forces still in Japan ?

Hummm...I don't see how my post lead you to say anything remotely even close to the removal of U.S. forces in Japan ??? I actually think there presents is beneficial and that a stronger and more active Japanese military is better for the US/Japan security alliance. You are bringing up crime or troops being stationed here It does matter to me because a strong Japan is a secure Japan.

 

[Maciamo]

Hummm...I don't see how my post lead you to say anything remotely even close to the removal of U.S. forces in Japan ???

I said that I personally didn't care, didn't I ? You are the one who always complain that Japan should have a stronger army and get complete sovereignty over its territory (it means that US troops shouldn't be there, and if it's not what you meant, then express yourself better)

I actually think there presents is beneficial and that a stronger and more active Japanese military is better for the US/Japan security alliance.

Thats's in clear contradiction to what you said earlier. You said 2 posts earlier :

It's a nations soveriegn right to arm itself in order to protect itself from foreign aggression.

I pointed out that Japan already has the 4th most powerful military in the world, in addition to the support from the strongest (USA). What reasons would there be for Japan to spend more money (=raise taxes) on the military budget if you agree that US troops should stay in Japan ? China is not strong enough against both Japan and the US. Anyway, there is virtually no chance of China attacking Japan anytime soon, as it would have grave economic repercussion on the Chinese economy. China is still a nation that needs to export to grow. Western countries and Japan are the main countries to import Chinese products, so China does NOT want to compromise its trade relations with all these countries by attacking Japan, or even Taiwan. if I were wrong, it would be a long time that they'd have invaded Taiwan.

You are bringing up crime or troops being stationed here It does matter to me because a strong Japan is a secure Japan.

FYI, this is the main reason that the Japanese (not me or you) want US troops to leave Japan. The main reason they don't actually do it, is that they need those troops to protect the country, or otherwise would have to raise taxes (and change the constitution) to fill the gap in the army. What is more, it's not the 45,000 US troops that matter for Japan; it's more the US presence and commitment. If a country wants to attack Japan, they will have to attack US troops and thus declare war on the US as well. And what country is foolosh enough to do that ? So, without a US presence in Japan, Japan has no guarantee that the US will help Japan with all its might if Japan is attacked. To filling the gap of US troops means create an army as strong as the whole US army, not just the 45,000 troops stationed there now. This is clearly impossible. Japan would need to spend about the same percentage of its GDP on the defence budget as North Korea.

Conclusion: Japan has no need of stronger army now if the US keeps its troops in Japan. If US troops leave Japan, Japan would have to remodel its military budget to levels similar to North Korea or other dictatures to fill the gap. Many Japanese people dislike the presence of US troops because of crime, but so far politicians have decided to keep things unchanged because it is the most reasonable thing to do. What is more, chances that China attack Japan within 10 years are virtually inexistant. North Korea's military budget is 8x smaller than Japan's SDF, and North Korea would be instantly destroyed by combined US-led allied forced were they to attack South Korea or Japan.

 

[lexico]

As I heard it, there are but 14 war criminals among the 2.5 million soldiers honored at Yasukuni. It just seems to be one of those things that would never be an issue were Japan to put a more accurate history in their textbooks, and make an official apology.

What I'm trying to say is that because people already have an issue with Japan's whitewashing of it's history, that they look for other things to support their assertion.

Are there 'war criminals' buried in one of the great U.S. cemetaries? I would imagine so. Although, since America was the victor, these people were never convicted of war crimes. Do the Japanese or German's raise hell over these 'war criminals'?

EDIT: Just read Lexico's post in the other thread saying there were 1068 war criminals. If someone knows a source for these, I'd be interested.

The figure 1,068 comes from the following.

IMTFE War Crimnals Sentenced by 7 Allied Powers-Death Penalty Statiscs
(bracketed figures represent those who received amnesty)

US...............143 (3)
UK...............223
Australia.......153
Netherlands...236 (10)
France...........63 (37)
Philippines.......17
China (ROC)...149

subtotal........984 (50)

Of the 934 who actually received the execution of their sentences, 920 are the class B & C Japanese war criminals who have been enshrined since 1959 upto 1978 when the adding the 14 class-A war criminals was finalised, bringing the figure to 934. To this must be added the 148 Korean war criminals who were enshrined without their families' consent; death penalty 23, life sentence 18, prolonged imprisonment 107. That gives us 920+148 = 1,068. Adding the 14 class A war criminals gives 1,068+14 = 1,082. It is difficult to get clear sources in any language on this. I harvested my figures mainly from two. There was one brief reference that there are a total of around 300 Korean and Taiwanese war criminals combined enshrined at the Yasukuni Shrine. They need to be deshrined and returned to their native countries.

Homu Daijin Kanbo Shiho Hosei Chosabu, Senso Hanzai Saiban Gaishi Yo, Tokyo, 1973, p. 266.

東京裁判ハンドブック (Tokyo Trials Handbook), p. 219

I only know there are 26 Taiwanese war criminals who recived the death penalty; I would be interested in finding more details as to classified as class B, C AND enshrined at the Yasukuni. I also admit my analysis need to be verified; I've only presented what sense I could make of the various statistics. The relative silence and inactivity in academia on the subject is apalling, and needs to be replaced with more active interest and research on the subject.

So only 14 were convicted ?

As for the Tokyo Trials Mar. 3 1946-Nov. 12 1948 (Oct 19, 1949 acc. to Huang Heyi), a total of 5,700 war-crime suspects were indicted, 4,403 convicted (death pentaly 984 (50), life sentence 475, non-life imprisonment 2,944), 279 released for insufficient evidence, and 1,018 proven not guilty of crimes as charged.

 

[Mandylion]

Benefits have nothing to do with Japan being fully armed & cocked.

So you are saying remilitarization and possibly destabilizing a region and endangering millions of lives is worth the "benefit" (which are still not clear what those are) of rearmament?

It's a nations soveriegn right to arm itself in order to protect itself from foreign aggression. It's in Japan best interest to be a better member of the Japan/U.S. security alliance.

Of course Japan has a right to defense. What is the SDF for? Don't forget about them. I'm not advocating removing the SDF, I'm contending that Japan has no need for a military capable of offensive military action. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Are you taking the position that Japan should have the capability to strike first and deploy troops in an offensive capacity?

For a nation to willfully remain pacifist and dependent on another nation for its security is woefully irresponsible no matter how you logically try to spin it in your favor.

Pacifist and defensive is different that agressive and offensive. Japan, in theory, has the capacity to defend itself and thus is not dependent on another nation for its security. A strong defense has worked for other countries - Switzerland comes to mind (there was a good article in Air and Space Mag. a few years ago about the Swiss Air Force, take a look if you have a moment).

For the last time, show me how 1) Japan's defensive and security agreements since WWII have been irresponsible and damaging to the nation, 2)why the time has come to revise the Japanese approach, and 3) some benefits beyond (what I will boil down to) because-other-countries-do-it mentality and I will be more than happy to listen.