Obeika,
Please read the following entry of "Occidentalism", a blog authored by Matt, an Australian. This was written October 17, 2005.
Sorry for a long quotation, but it will help your understanding.
I have omitted some parts, I recommend you to go to his blog youself.
I cannot paste the URL, so please search "Occidentalism".
===== quote
Koizumi visits Yasukuni Shrine
Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi has visited Yasukuni Jinja, sparking protests from Korea and China. This was his fifth visit, according to Asahi Shinbun.
South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Ban Ki Moon summoned Japanese Ambassador to South Korea Shotaro Oshima in Seoul. Ban said the South Korean government felt "deep regret and disappointment" over Koizumi's actions.The leaders of China and South Korea have repeatedly called on Koizumi to refrain from visiting Yasukuni this year, the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.
However, Koizumi remained noncommittal, saying only that he would take "appropriate measures."
In Korea, the foreign minister demanded an explanation from the Japanese ambassador, and it seems likely that President Roh will cancel a summit with Japan.
South Korea considers scrapping plans to hold a summit with Japan as Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi once again visited a controversial war shrine in Tokyo Monday, a Chong Wa Dae spokesman said.
The two countries do not have settled summit schedules, but it is President Roh Moo-hyun's turn to visit Japan as his Japanese counterpart came to Seoul last June.
Kim Man-soo, presidential spokesman, said that the government will reconsider whether Roh will visit Japan later this year as predicted.
"As of today, the government can't say that we are thinking of President Roh's visit to Japan,'' Kim told reporters. "I mean there could be a change in schedules.''
He also questioned the possibility of holding a bilateral meeting during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Pusan next month by saying, "We have not paid special attention to it.''
Kim said the government will make decisions on the Seoul-Tokyo relations, based on a recognition that Koizumi's visit to the Yaskuni Shrine would affect the bilateral ties.
My country (Australia) was one of the countries that actually fought Japan, unlike Korea. My countrymen actually suffered war crimes from the Japanese army (unlike Koreans). However, Korean prison guards in South East Asia were reputed to be especially cruel to the allied prisoners.
In 'Prisoners of the Japanese,' on page 104, Gavan Daws makes the following comment -
"No one could imagine anything worse than a Japanese guard until Korean guards began turning up in the Southeast Asian camps."
Indeed, there are many accounts by allied prisoners of Korean cruelty.
By end of February 1943 another fifteen British horios had died, mainly from disease and malnutrition, leaving fifty-seven. One had succumbed to a particularly severe bashing by Korean guards, 'some of the cruellest men in the world', who had taken over.
There were one hundred and forty-eight former Korean prison guards were convicted of war crimes, and 23 or those were executed.
Although one can half understand China protesting (whether the protest is justified or not, China was at war with Japan), the Korean reaction is puzzling. The 13 'war criminals' interred in Yasukuni Shrine (out of 2,466,000 dead enshrined there) have nothing to do with war crimes in Korea (Japan was not at war with Korea), so there is a big question as to whether Korea has any right to be involved in this controversy at all. After all, if this is about war criminals, and there are no Korean victims of war crimes, then it seems like they are involving themselves in a controversy they have no business being in.
I wonder what the Koreans think of the 21,000 Korean soldiers (all volunteers) interred in Yasukuni shrine? I believe there is also a Korean Kamikaze pilot interred there.
190 Responses to "Koizumi visits Yasukuni Shrine"
dead said:
>Although one can half understand China protesting (whether the protest is
>justified or not, China was at war with Japan), the Korean reaction is
>puzzling. The 13 'war criminals' interred in Yasukuni Shrine have nothing
>to do with war crimes in Korea (Japan was not at war with Korea), so
>there is a big question as to whether Korea has any right to be involved in
>this controvesy at all. After all, if this is about war criminals, and there are
>no Korean victims of war crimes, then it seems like they are involving
>themselves in a controversy they have no business being in.
You really don't understand the Koreans at all. Of course, since you ask this question but don't answer means you don't have an answer. Then, how about this:
The Occupation of Korea by Japan from 1910 to 1945
Is there no relationship becuase the Koreans did not have soldiers fighitng in tanks and airplans against the Japanese? Or because they did not have a government that could "declare war". The Occupation and Japan's aggression in the Pacific are related.
Does the war criminals, like Toho, have a direct link to Korea's suffering. Probably not. But, on the other hand, war criminals, like Toho, are a symbol of Japan's agression in the Pacific and therefore a symbol to be hated, to protest.
Remember, Japan's Pacific War did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began in the 1930s with China and, even further back, to 1905 when Japan defeated Russia and began its colonization of Korea.
Think about how the Koreans feel about this issue.
35 years of Korean history under the rule of Japan.
Of course, Korea has a right to protest.
The main question is, and should be your focus:
Should Koizumi, as a head of state, visit Yasukuni Shrine? Is it a shrine to honor the sacrifices of soldiers or a shrine to honor war criminals. That is the debate.
>Does Korea have any right to be involved in this controvesy at all?
Is there anyone that believes that Korea does not have a right to be involved based on history?
I would like to hear.
Posted on 17-Oct-05 at 3:39 am | Permalink
nig said:
"Although one can half understand China protesting (whether the protest is justified or not, China was at war with Japan), the Korean reaction is puzzling. The 13 'war criminals' interred in Yasukuni Shrine have nothing to do with war crimes in Korea (Japan was not at war with Korea), "
Therefore according to Matt's definition the Polish should not complain about anything the Nazi's did because they were annexed 2 days before the official start of WWII. In addition, based on Matt's new invented definitions Poland were not involved in WWII because they did not exist at that time.
I agree with the Korean protest on this subject. It is the equivalent of the German Chancellor visiting sites that venerate Nazi Heroes. That would not be tolerated by any European leaders.
Also I don't think pointing out what the Korea guards did is evidence of Korean "war crimes". Its the equivalent of saying that the various nationalities that were forced to fight for the Germans hold national responsibility for their actions. There is a big difference between a military alliance and an occupation.
Posted on 17-Oct-05 at 4:05 am | Permalink
Matt said:
You really don't understand the Koreans at all. Of course, since you ask this question but don't answer means you don't have an answer. Then, how about this:
The Occupation of Korea by Japan from 1910 to 1945
Is there no relationship becuase the Koreans did not have soldiers fighitng in tanks and airplans against the Japanese? Or because they did not have a government that could "declare war". The Occupation and Japan's aggression in the Pacific are related.
'Occupation' is not the word for what happened to Korea. Occupation is what happens after you fight some battles, and the enemy army takes over. Can you name any battles fought between Japan and Korea before Japan took over Korea? I doubt it, because there were none. Korea signed a treaty with Japan, and Japan made Korea a protectorate, with the agreement of the Korean king. Whether you think that was fair or not, it doesnt mean that it was an 'occupation'.
Korea was also not treated like a liberated allied country by the allies either, but was treated in the same way as Japan (a defeated enemy), and was under American military occupation from 1945-1948.
According to American Military Government in Korea by E. Grant Meade, 1951, (p76) "From a command point of view no separation had been made between the Japanese and Korean Occupations. Both were under the authority of General MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), and the first policy statements dealing with Military Government in Chosen (Korea) were issued by him from Japan before the XXIVth Corps landed in the peninsula. Error lay in not separating the two administrations and in not providing a more direct channel between Seoul and Washington. MacArthur could hardly be expected to give Korean problems more than secondary consideration, and there was a tendency to place both Japan and Korea in the same category. As one was an enemy, it would have been appropriate to place the two upon a different footing. The State Department was required to deal with Korea through SCAP, and the implementation of its Korean policies was conditioned by the attitudes of the military toward the Japanese occupation, whether these policies had any connection with that operation or not. In Chosen both the Americans and Koreans were adversely affected by this setup. The former found supplies scarce, replacements inferior, and promotion slow; the latter suffered from a stifled foreign trade program, an influx of destitute refugees, and the opprobrium of being classed with an enemy. No one benefited by the situation, but the most serious casualty was American foreign policy."
France on the otherhand (a genuine ally that was actually occupied), was able to establish their government immediately. If the Koreans were friends of the allies, why did they have to spend three years under military occupation?
All things considering, I dont think Yasukuni is an issue that has anything to do with Koreans.
Posted on 17-Oct-05 at 4:12 am | Permalink
Matt said:
Therefore according to Matt's definition the Polish should not complain about anything the Nazi's did because they were annexed 2 days before the official start of WWII. In addition, based on Matt's new invented definitions Poland were not involved in WWII because they did not exist at that time.
No, thats not my definition at all. Germany invaded Poland, and fought many battles. Can you show me any links showing that Japan invaded Korea?
I agree with the Korean protest on this subject. It is the equivalent of the German Chancellor visiting sites that venerate Nazi Heroes. That would not be tolerated by any European leaders.
I cant say I am shocked that you agree with the Koreans. Still, Yasukuni Shrine (have you been there? I have) and venerating Nazi Heroes is a false comparison. I dont think anyone has suggested that Koizumi goes there to pray to the souls of war criminals.
Also I don't think pointing out what the Korea guards did is evidence of Korean "war crimes".
I never said these crimes were the responsibility of the Republic of Korea (a foolish concept - ROK didnt even exist at the time, and neither did Japan under its current, new system, for that matter). What I was saying is that Koreans were not on the recieving end of war crimes, but some Koreans were committing war crimes.
There is a big difference between a military alliance and an occupation.
There is also a big difference between an occupation and Korea from 1905-1945.
====== unquote