Future prime minister Shintaro Ishihara and why we should "whitewash" history
- Thread starter McTojo
- Start date
- 17 Jul 2002
- 5,907
- 385
McTojo said:
Do you even understand that Koizumi is the leader of the LDP ? He only got rid of a few party members that went against him, which is a normal thing to do in politics. Yet, most members of the LDP are still the old establishmen.
Conservative is the opposite of reformist. How can he revise the constitution and be called a "conservative" ? Maybe you meant "nationalist".
Just in case you don't know, in "Ishihara Shintaro", Shintaro is the given name, as the Japanese place the family name first. Or maybe you are a personal buddy of his ?
I doubt that the lack of interest is due to americanisation. At least, this americanisation keep them interested in all American things. Otherwise they would only be interested in Japan, as they mostly are now. That's why I say the Japanese are very ethnocentric (it was not offtopic, fyi). I am very aware that the Japanese have a very poor knowledge of the rest of the world, but this is due to the ethnocentric traditional culture (remember the "closed country" Edo-period ?) and education system that teach children ridiculous things about "foreigners" (which are summarised in my article here).
The same phenomenon is happening in all developed countries. My parents and especially grand-parents' generation also had "jobs for life", but now people prefer "job-hopping". So what ? Researches have shown that people who do the same job all their life are more likely to develop Alzheimer's disease once they retire.
Universal problem.
Not at all. In fact. I would say it's the opposite. The old generation who has fought in the war, or who grew up at that time, and know very well what happened, tend to be much more confident and outspoken. But young people generally do not know what really happened during WWII justly because Japan has always kept the worse out of the textbooks to this day. The Chinese and Korean complain that some books outrightly deny or fail to mention the Nanjing Massacre, but I have not seen a single school textbook that explained all the war atrocities. If I created the poll What should be mentioned in Japanese history textbooks ?, it is because most of these things are NOT explained and the youth of today is left wondering why Chinese people start hate protests against Japan. I have discussed this with dozens of Japanese in their 20's and 30's who have really wonder what Japan ever did to China. They usually believe that Japan liberated China from Western powers, as the textbooks say, and that apart from the "Nanjing Incident" as they call it, the Japanese didn't really do anything bad in China. Nanjing is just about 1/20th of all people who died during the Japanese occupation.
Yo are so naive. You don't decide to stop exporting to the world's second largest economy, which happens to be the next country, just because other people also buy. You want to sell to as many countries as possible. I am not sure if you have ever been to China, but the Japanese investments there are very clear.
On the one hand you complain that Japan is too americanised and should basically cut part of its ties with the US by re-writing the constitution (i.e. booting US troops out of Japan and bringing an end to the special relationship between Japan and the US), but on the other hand, you agree with the US policy that Japan should join the UNSC. Anyway, one prerequisite for Japan to play a bigger role in the international community is to stop being so ethnocentric and protectionist in the first place, and teach people better about the world at school.
Last edited:
- 17 Sep 2005
- 6,017
- 1,970
I agree that McTojo at least deserves to hear my reasoning. At first I thought that McTojo was just a little obnoxious, but that's of course well within acceptable behavior. Then this thread [thread]19783[/thread]
came along. Look at post #3. In this post, McTojo admits ignorance of the topic he made outrageous remarks about in the thread opener. He then proceeds to state that it was posted simply to stimulate debate.
The way I saw it was this. McTojo is sometimes sincere in his posts and sometimes very insincere. If someone is purposely being insincere in his or her posts, I see absolutely no value in responding to said posts. Getting upset about the statements made therein is equally meaningless, because it's impossible to know whether you're being offended by someone's true opinion or plain smoke. And getting upset over such smoke is INHO a waste of time.
It seems to me that Forums such as this only work as well as we members let them work. If we purposely make uneducated inciteful remarks, we are not "building" or "contributing" anything whatsoever, but instead working to destroy the forum, whether that is our intention or not.
I do not wish to see such a thing happening here. That is why I ask others not to respond to someone who admittedly makes insincere, uneducated, and inciteful posts. It's that simple.
came along. Look at post #3. In this post, McTojo admits ignorance of the topic he made outrageous remarks about in the thread opener. He then proceeds to state that it was posted simply to stimulate debate.
The way I saw it was this. McTojo is sometimes sincere in his posts and sometimes very insincere. If someone is purposely being insincere in his or her posts, I see absolutely no value in responding to said posts. Getting upset about the statements made therein is equally meaningless, because it's impossible to know whether you're being offended by someone's true opinion or plain smoke. And getting upset over such smoke is INHO a waste of time.
It seems to me that Forums such as this only work as well as we members let them work. If we purposely make uneducated inciteful remarks, we are not "building" or "contributing" anything whatsoever, but instead working to destroy the forum, whether that is our intention or not.
I do not wish to see such a thing happening here. That is why I ask others not to respond to someone who admittedly makes insincere, uneducated, and inciteful posts. It's that simple.
- Thread starter
- #29
I promise to respond to all post.
I will need time to address everyone's point of view so give me some time.
Missawa, you need to be more original besides telling people to stop replying to my post. I understand that you are confused between me being sincere and insincere, it's normal. But try to see things from a more objective point of view next time
I will need time to address everyone's point of view so give me some time.
Missawa, you need to be more original besides telling people to stop replying to my post. I understand that you are confused between me being sincere and insincere, it's normal. But try to see things from a more objective point of view next time
- Thread starter
- #30
After carefully reading through everyone's post I conclude...
My original thread " Future prime minister Shinataro Ishihara and why we should " whitewash " history" is left with too many ambiguities and equivocations to respond to effectively and intelligibly.
I concede that I wrote this out of haste with no sources to back my assertions and for this I apologize, partly because I believe so much in what I'm saying but have not taken the time to provide sources to support my claims.
I will revise my original thread to reflect a more objective and sound argument in support of Ishihara.
My original thread " Future prime minister Shinataro Ishihara and why we should " whitewash " history" is left with too many ambiguities and equivocations to respond to effectively and intelligibly.
I concede that I wrote this out of haste with no sources to back my assertions and for this I apologize, partly because I believe so much in what I'm saying but have not taken the time to provide sources to support my claims.
I will revise my original thread to reflect a more objective and sound argument in support of Ishihara.
Silverpoint
後輩
- 17 Jul 2005
- 483
- 44
I think we all look forward to a more reasoned and objective argument in favor of Ishihara. Nationalistic pride isn't going to stand up in the eyes of most of the people who post in this forum.
- 17 Jul 2002
- 5,907
- 385
I have split Pipokun's offtopic about protectionism and ethnocentrism here.
Pierrot le Fou
十人黄色
- 14 Oct 2005
- 61
- 14
Ishihara is on one side represents all things horrible about Japanese xenophobia (for instance his comment that if there was a giant earthquake in Tokyo, the Koreans and Chinese would be out looting in a heartbeat). On the other hand, he has some very positive changes for Japan that he would like to make (his recent comments on eliminating the Japanese cedar monoculture forests in order to reduce the allergy suffering of the Japanese people, which is massive).
Like it or not, he's here to stay. Despite the fact that half of the things he says make me quite angry at Japan, and especially the most metropolitan of Japanese cities (Tokyo) for electing him, he offers a point of view that you just don't hear from so many other politicians.
Sure, Koizumi is brave for taking on the old-school LDP and pushing the privatization of the post office through. That took balls, and he scored a resounding victory for reform. But he's still crippled by the status quo, and the fact that he has to tip-toe around. Ishihara on the other hand is a loud-mouthed politician with a rather wide base of support who says things regardless of the establishment -- some good and some bad -- that should make people think.
Approve of what he's arguing or not, Japan needs a loud-mouthed politician. A Horie-mon of the political world if you will.
Furthermore, I wouldn't worry too much about nationalist factions in Japan. Recently Hiroshima passed an ordinance banning the sound-vans if they are spewing 'hateful messages' or something of the sort. That's a big step towards cleaning up the nationalists, as it takes a large portion of their voice away. Hopefully Osaka will follow, because I am sick of leaving Umeda station to the sounds of nationalists cursing my existence.
Like it or not, he's here to stay. Despite the fact that half of the things he says make me quite angry at Japan, and especially the most metropolitan of Japanese cities (Tokyo) for electing him, he offers a point of view that you just don't hear from so many other politicians.
Sure, Koizumi is brave for taking on the old-school LDP and pushing the privatization of the post office through. That took balls, and he scored a resounding victory for reform. But he's still crippled by the status quo, and the fact that he has to tip-toe around. Ishihara on the other hand is a loud-mouthed politician with a rather wide base of support who says things regardless of the establishment -- some good and some bad -- that should make people think.
Approve of what he's arguing or not, Japan needs a loud-mouthed politician. A Horie-mon of the political world if you will.
Furthermore, I wouldn't worry too much about nationalist factions in Japan. Recently Hiroshima passed an ordinance banning the sound-vans if they are spewing 'hateful messages' or something of the sort. That's a big step towards cleaning up the nationalists, as it takes a large portion of their voice away. Hopefully Osaka will follow, because I am sick of leaving Umeda station to the sounds of nationalists cursing my existence.
Silverpoint
後輩
- 17 Jul 2005
- 483
- 44
McTojo said:
Should we assume that the lack of further comment from you means you don't have one?
- Thread starter
- #36
Silverpoint said:
I have two postulates that I would like to introduce to support my original post but I have to use other sources that I can't find online. I actually have to research books in the library over here in Japan which are limited in English translations. So, for the time being, no I don't have a rebuddle.
lexico
後輩
- 22 Dec 2004
- 2,584
- 155
I'm with you, Mingo. I can almost visualise certain Asian varieties of Nazi's hiding in the dark counting the days, months and years savoring and rejoicing over every death report from some shady loyalist informant.mingo said:
The funny thing is, the aggressors take every opportunity to beat up on the drums of self-defense when they were the ones to strike time and again in the past 150 years of Asian aggression. That is a snapshot of what goes on in their minds. *war, war, and more war....* It was good business for them back there, and it will be good business when the time is ripe again. Asians, beware ! The free world, beware ! The wolf never sleeps, and will strike again !
- 15 Mar 2003
- 1,209
- 47
Re; Japan on UNSC
Looks like I am going to have to do this a bit at a time -
I suppose I should have phrased my question in terms of what does Japan stand to gain from a permanent seat on the UNSC? What would "a more active role" gain her that some 40-odd years of not having a seat has not supplied?
Public opinion has not supported a remilitarization / deployment of the SDF to hot spots. Heck, the move into Iraq to do things as benign as cleaning water resulted in sharp debate. Why would any political leader think the voting public would support the SDF spilling blood (their own or others?)
On the international scene, Japan's neighbors are not comfortable with a rearmed Japan. Why give your political opponents more ammunition to attempt and influence your policies? Japan's military is not integrated into an international force (like Germany's was into NATO (and still is? anyone?)) and limited by that structure - so, no matter how remote the chance, no one is comfortable with the worlds second largest economy and a technological leader buying guns - especially when those who have their finger on the button (politicians) seem oblivious to issues of history and how their actions and rhetoric impact their neighbors.
From a strategic sense, what value does sparking an arms race, even a small, quite one - a logical result given the players in the region - hold for Japan. Japan cannot ever achieve the capability to strike first and survive the counterstrike, even if we are talking about conventional weapons. The country and its industrial capacity is simply to tightly compacted. In short, going to war with - say China - would be the end of Japan as the world knows it.
Aside from politicians who see the UNSC and a rearmed Japan as somehow making the nation "equal" or a "normal" nation vis-a-vis other countries - a dubious distinction (but an interesting historical discussion on Japanese views of hierarchy, but I digress) at best - it is in no ones best interest to see a rearmed Japan, least of all the Japanese.
So I ask again, what has Japan lost from not being on the UNSC, and what could it possible stand to gain?
Looks like I am going to have to do this a bit at a time -
McTojo said:
I suppose I should have phrased my question in terms of what does Japan stand to gain from a permanent seat on the UNSC? What would "a more active role" gain her that some 40-odd years of not having a seat has not supplied?
Public opinion has not supported a remilitarization / deployment of the SDF to hot spots. Heck, the move into Iraq to do things as benign as cleaning water resulted in sharp debate. Why would any political leader think the voting public would support the SDF spilling blood (their own or others?)
On the international scene, Japan's neighbors are not comfortable with a rearmed Japan. Why give your political opponents more ammunition to attempt and influence your policies? Japan's military is not integrated into an international force (like Germany's was into NATO (and still is? anyone?)) and limited by that structure - so, no matter how remote the chance, no one is comfortable with the worlds second largest economy and a technological leader buying guns - especially when those who have their finger on the button (politicians) seem oblivious to issues of history and how their actions and rhetoric impact their neighbors.
From a strategic sense, what value does sparking an arms race, even a small, quite one - a logical result given the players in the region - hold for Japan. Japan cannot ever achieve the capability to strike first and survive the counterstrike, even if we are talking about conventional weapons. The country and its industrial capacity is simply to tightly compacted. In short, going to war with - say China - would be the end of Japan as the world knows it.
Aside from politicians who see the UNSC and a rearmed Japan as somehow making the nation "equal" or a "normal" nation vis-a-vis other countries - a dubious distinction (but an interesting historical discussion on Japanese views of hierarchy, but I digress) at best - it is in no ones best interest to see a rearmed Japan, least of all the Japanese.
So I ask again, what has Japan lost from not being on the UNSC, and what could it possible stand to gain?
- Thread starter
- #40
Unfair
I think it's completely irresponsible for a country to allow another country to tell it that it cannot arm because it cannot own up to its own history.
What you're saying Mandylion is that Japan is not worthy to be an active member of a governing international body of people on any level because of their inability to acknowledge wrong doing in their past; Geez...that is awfully hypocritical, don't you think? Especially, when you consider that two of the members on the UNSC (China & U.S.) have never come to terms nor acknowledged their wrong doings for atrocities that they had committed but yet both of those countries have a right to make decisions that can effect the world... Don't you think China poses a greater threat in terms of international stability ? A country with a puppet quasi government with nuclear weapons, an economy that has the potential to surpass the U.S. in the future; a country that has one of the worlds worst human rights records on record. Hell, Manylion the Chinese still have firing squads and its the 21st Century they imprison and shoot people like Falon Gong for expressing their own religious beliefs thorough non-violent and non-verbal means. The Chinese are just as bad as the old Taliban regimes in Afghanistan. It would be in Japans best interest for long term security to be able to have the same veto power as China, don't you think ? After all, Japan is a model asian nation like I've mentioned in ealier post and that's not because Japan is a pacifist nation that's because Japan has proven over the years that she can be responsible and that she can contribute to the international community !
You are basing your logic on things that have happened sixty years ago opposed to what's happening today. Japan is one of the worlds largest donors when it comes to helping people around the world. What has China done besides a few menial tasks ; a little disaster relief here and there.
Instead, China over the years has conspired with people like A Q Khan who happens to be a noted nuclear arms smuggler from Pakistan:http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2066.html
China is helping to spread illegal nuclear weapons and finance governments that have been branded as Axis of Evil. Countries that pose a greater threat than Japan which is a democratic country with no nuclear weapons capabilities. Just a few misguided politician who pay respects to a shrine that honours their war dead. Like that's going to make Japan start WW3 if she gets a seat on the UNSC !? You study the arts Mandylion , you should know better. A pacifist Japan is not good for Japan any more. The world is changing and Japan needs to be there right along with the decision makers at the top not China !
Mandylion said:
I think it's completely irresponsible for a country to allow another country to tell it that it cannot arm because it cannot own up to its own history.
What you're saying Mandylion is that Japan is not worthy to be an active member of a governing international body of people on any level because of their inability to acknowledge wrong doing in their past; Geez...that is awfully hypocritical, don't you think? Especially, when you consider that two of the members on the UNSC (China & U.S.) have never come to terms nor acknowledged their wrong doings for atrocities that they had committed but yet both of those countries have a right to make decisions that can effect the world... Don't you think China poses a greater threat in terms of international stability ? A country with a puppet quasi government with nuclear weapons, an economy that has the potential to surpass the U.S. in the future; a country that has one of the worlds worst human rights records on record. Hell, Manylion the Chinese still have firing squads and its the 21st Century they imprison and shoot people like Falon Gong for expressing their own religious beliefs thorough non-violent and non-verbal means. The Chinese are just as bad as the old Taliban regimes in Afghanistan. It would be in Japans best interest for long term security to be able to have the same veto power as China, don't you think ? After all, Japan is a model asian nation like I've mentioned in ealier post and that's not because Japan is a pacifist nation that's because Japan has proven over the years that she can be responsible and that she can contribute to the international community !
You are basing your logic on things that have happened sixty years ago opposed to what's happening today. Japan is one of the worlds largest donors when it comes to helping people around the world. What has China done besides a few menial tasks ; a little disaster relief here and there.
Instead, China over the years has conspired with people like A Q Khan who happens to be a noted nuclear arms smuggler from Pakistan:http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2066.html
China is helping to spread illegal nuclear weapons and finance governments that have been branded as Axis of Evil. Countries that pose a greater threat than Japan which is a democratic country with no nuclear weapons capabilities. Just a few misguided politician who pay respects to a shrine that honours their war dead. Like that's going to make Japan start WW3 if she gets a seat on the UNSC !? You study the arts Mandylion , you should know better. A pacifist Japan is not good for Japan any more. The world is changing and Japan needs to be there right along with the decision makers at the top not China !
Silverpoint
後輩
- 17 Jul 2005
- 483
- 44
McTojo said:
I didn't say so at the time, but I love the irony in the fact that you want to go back and revise the view of your previous actions.
- 15 Mar 2003
- 1,209
- 47
If you want to talk about China and how it got on the UNSC and if it has business being there, that is another topic. I'm talking about Japan
First, I did not say Japan was not worthy to be "an active member of a governing international body." The UN, as you know, performs many roles of which Japan has a hand in, and the country has been a valued member of the IMF and World Bank. My comments were aimed at the strategic and political implications of Japan having a permanent seat on the UNSC - of which I see very little real value both in Japan's own domestic political situation, regional concerns, and larger international issues.
You are partly right when you say I think Japan should not have a seat because it won't own up to its past. Failing to do so is reckless and insensitive and hardly becoming of a UNSC member.
Do I think other countries need to own up to their pasts and shape up their act you bet but this forum is called JREF for a reason. If you want a UNSC / UN debate in more general terms, start a new thread.
Japan has a good track record on helping others and should continue to do so. However, I have seen nothing to convince me that rearming Japan and putting them on the UNSC would help anyone, including the Japanese. Yes, my argument is based partly in history because it should be obvious that so much of the political debate in East Asia hinges on history and how events are interpreted and reinterpreted. It is not the only factor, indeed, but look at the topics being floated these days - Yasukuni, Japanese rearmament, the textbook issue, comfort women, Japanese nationalism - if Japan does not deal with its history, these things will remain very easy go-to issues for Japan's regional opponents and will continue to surface again and again in regional relations.
I don't see why China keeps coming back into the picture. That is a whole different debate - unless you are trying so say Japan would not be a worse member than other countries? I don't want to put words in your mouth.... so I will leave that one for now only to say, how would that be relevant?
If you reread my discussion of the strategic ramification of Japan having a UNSC seat, you will find that no where do I talk about Japan starting WW3. I talk about the logic or rather lack of it, in toward building up Japan's military. Japan's policy makers need to think about what benefits a costly and resource-intense buildup would accrue. My line of reasoning shows none - instead of stabilizing the region, a stronger Japan has the possibility of destabilizing East Asia and so Japan is actually more secure not maintaining a huge military. A bit of tricky logic, but give it a minute...
I still fail to see, and have not been offered any evidence, that a non-pacifist Japan would be any benefit to anyone aside from a few politicians and a industrial military complex. I realize we will probably never come to common ground on this McTojo as you seem to define "the top" in terms of hard power (military) etc. while I subscribe to soft power (economic, cultural) thinking as equally - if not more - important in the world today.
Soft power has worked for Japan. Why change a good thing?
McTojo said:
First, I did not say Japan was not worthy to be "an active member of a governing international body." The UN, as you know, performs many roles of which Japan has a hand in, and the country has been a valued member of the IMF and World Bank. My comments were aimed at the strategic and political implications of Japan having a permanent seat on the UNSC - of which I see very little real value both in Japan's own domestic political situation, regional concerns, and larger international issues.
You are partly right when you say I think Japan should not have a seat because it won't own up to its past. Failing to do so is reckless and insensitive and hardly becoming of a UNSC member.
Do I think other countries need to own up to their pasts and shape up their act you bet but this forum is called JREF for a reason. If you want a UNSC / UN debate in more general terms, start a new thread.
McTojo said:
Japan has a good track record on helping others and should continue to do so. However, I have seen nothing to convince me that rearming Japan and putting them on the UNSC would help anyone, including the Japanese. Yes, my argument is based partly in history because it should be obvious that so much of the political debate in East Asia hinges on history and how events are interpreted and reinterpreted. It is not the only factor, indeed, but look at the topics being floated these days - Yasukuni, Japanese rearmament, the textbook issue, comfort women, Japanese nationalism - if Japan does not deal with its history, these things will remain very easy go-to issues for Japan's regional opponents and will continue to surface again and again in regional relations.
I don't see why China keeps coming back into the picture. That is a whole different debate - unless you are trying so say Japan would not be a worse member than other countries? I don't want to put words in your mouth.... so I will leave that one for now only to say, how would that be relevant?
McTojo said:
If you reread my discussion of the strategic ramification of Japan having a UNSC seat, you will find that no where do I talk about Japan starting WW3. I talk about the logic or rather lack of it, in toward building up Japan's military. Japan's policy makers need to think about what benefits a costly and resource-intense buildup would accrue. My line of reasoning shows none - instead of stabilizing the region, a stronger Japan has the possibility of destabilizing East Asia and so Japan is actually more secure not maintaining a huge military. A bit of tricky logic, but give it a minute...
McTojo said:
I still fail to see, and have not been offered any evidence, that a non-pacifist Japan would be any benefit to anyone aside from a few politicians and a industrial military complex. I realize we will probably never come to common ground on this McTojo as you seem to define "the top" in terms of hard power (military) etc. while I subscribe to soft power (economic, cultural) thinking as equally - if not more - important in the world today.
Soft power has worked for Japan. Why change a good thing?
- Thread starter
- #43
My point:
1) Japan is a sovereign nation
2) No other country should tell it what to do; advice on a diplomatic level, yes.
3) Japan should be entitled to all of the same rights and privileges as any other democratic nation.
4) The past is the past and no amount of apology will ever heal the wounds of the victims of Japan's aggression.
5) acknowledging past aggression and addressing historical inaccuracies on both sides not just the Iris Chang version is important.
6) It is in Japans best interest to revise article 9 and to strengthen its military. Why ? Because it's common sense ! It's got nothing to do creating instability in asia.
1) Japan is a sovereign nation
2) No other country should tell it what to do; advice on a diplomatic level, yes.
3) Japan should be entitled to all of the same rights and privileges as any other democratic nation.
4) The past is the past and no amount of apology will ever heal the wounds of the victims of Japan's aggression.
5) acknowledging past aggression and addressing historical inaccuracies on both sides not just the Iris Chang version is important.
6) It is in Japans best interest to revise article 9 and to strengthen its military. Why ? Because it's common sense ! It's got nothing to do creating instability in asia.
- 17 Jul 2002
- 5,907
- 385
McTojo said:
Correct
All countries tell each others what to do, especially between neighbours or countries that have close ties. Just look at the EU; 25 countries discussing about what is best for everyone (else). The US is an excellent example of country that tells other countries what to do, and never listens to other's opinions.
A country can only be democratic when its people want it to be. Japan already has the same rights and privileges as any democratic nation. Yet, its own politicians try to make the system undemocratic (e.g. de facto one patry system, with the LDP in power for the lat 50 years, and many laws limiting democracy), Likewise, Japanese politicians have the power to change the constitution and boot US troops out of Japan, but so far the elected majority has refused to do so (mostly because they fear China).
But behaving like nothing happened, openly denying it (like some politicians), downplaying atrocities in history textbooks, or pay homage to war criminals is clearly putting salt on those wounds. No need to apologising more if this kind of behaviour disappeared. Everytime politicians visit Yasukuni, or the government approves a NEW school textbook downplaying or "forgetting to mention" even briefly the atrocities that happened just 65 years ago is unacceptable. What do you think would happen if German school textbooks didn't mention the Holocaust and qualified their invasion of most of Europe as a "German advance" or "liberating Europe from Jewish influence" ? What if US textbooks "forgot" to mention about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Have you read any Japanese history textbooks ? I went to a bookshop and read what 4 or 5 of them wrote about WWII and China. ISome are as bad as my case examples about Germany and the US above.
Then, why don't you go to Kasumigaseki and tell politicians to change it. They have the power to do so, and have been discussing it for years !
I think you are confused. You think that Japan lacks the power to change its own constitution as if all its policies were dictated by the US. This is not true. Japanese politicians willingly keep close relations with the US for business reasons, and keep the US troops in Japan as a deterrent against Chinese or North Korean attacks.
- 15 Mar 2003
- 1,209
- 47
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.
McTojo said:
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.
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
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.Maciamo said:
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. So only 14 were convicted?
Silverpoint
後輩
- 17 Jul 2005
- 483
- 44
I brought this up with a friend yesterday, and he was convinced that one of the problems with the war criminal situation, is that (for whatever reason) the ashes of the dead Japanese, both criminal and ordinary, became mingled and it is now impossible to separate the remains of the criminals from the rest of the ash. It sounds like an argument of convenience but not being an expert on the subject, I'd be interested to know whether there's any truth in this assertion.
- 17 Jul 2002
- 5,907
- 385
Revenant said:
Both honouring the war criminals and whitewashing history can anger other Asian nations. They are not necessarily the same thing. One id about the representative of a country honouring people who order mass massacres, and the other is about the youth not being told about these massacres.
I am not aware of any war criminal having a shrine or being paid homage in Germany. In Japan, about half of the population is against politicians' visits, while the other half is ardently in favour.
That's because there are several classes of war criminals. There are only 14 class-A war criminals in Japan, but 1068 in total. The class-A type are the masterminds and commanders of the worst war atrocities committed. Note that some top generals were not even considered as war criminals because, even though they ordered their men to kill, it was done in accordance with the Laws of war. War criminals are those that ordered the massacre and mass rapes of civilians (including women and children), scientific experiments of life humans, etc. Some are at least as bad as Hitler, maybe worse.
