Dok-Doh

[KhawMengLee]

Funny thing is, I had this conversation with a guy from Hanoi yesterday (after all these postings, I was kind of curious about what the rest of Asia thinks about Japan, China and the whole situation). I asked him what most Vietnamese thought of China. He said this:

"Chinese are smart. But they try to get everything by using tricks."

That raised my eyebrows, but I wasn't really that surprised. Of course, I then asked him about what most Vietnamese think of Japan. He replied to my question:

"Japanese are smarter. They get what they want through hard work. But they are freaks."

It thought it was actually a fair view, but I did ask further about about the "freaks" bit, to which he replied that the Japanese will "try anything." Not necessarily a bad comment - kind of funny really. Anyway, he also informed me that Vietnamese Japan relations are very good right now, with a lot of trade in the energy industry going on.

It's kind of interesting to note that although Issac is talking about the U.S. invlovement in Vietnam (which he called an "invasion") and making sweeping statements like "Asia doesn't trust Japan," it seems important to note that 1. many Vietnamese don't trust China, 2. there is a healthy respect there for Japan, and 3. the U.S. and Vietnam have good relations currently (dipl. realtions established in 1995 and Bilateral Trade agreement in 2001).

Its funny, Vietnam doesn't really pressure the U.S. for apologies over the war and the U.S. doesn't pressure Vietnam for same. The two countries forge ahead with realtions that are mutually beneficial and have reached a historical balance.

Come to think of it, Japan doesn't pressure the US for apologies over the use of atomic weapons, and the U.S. never asked for an apology for Pearl Harbor or the Bataan Death March. Both nations recognize the past as such, and know that the present is built of the stronger and more recent history of friendship and multual gain.

owari

P.S.: Anyone who quotes George Santayana in response to this post is a moron.
P.P.S.: Wasn't it more like incursions into Cambodia? Not really an invasion - just operations. By the way, my old man got in trouble for calling artillery on Vietnamese units who has crossed the river which formed the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. Opps...

There was a bit of animosity between the vietnamese(local population) and the chinese(the manchus). This stems back to the time of Vietnam being part of French Indo China. The French controlled all aspects of the local vietnamese economy. From an office clerk to commerce. The local vietnamese were only allowed to work as coolies or waiters. The Chinese were the 'local' ruling class and were often seen at the end as France's lackeys.

Many of the refugees who fled the communist controlled south at the war's end are ethnically chinese.

************************************************** *****

America's conduct in Vietnam was pretty sober, apart from incidents like My Lai, it wasn't part of US policy to kidnap women and force them into sexual slavery in field brothel or hold competitions to see how many ppl they could behead in a day. The US did not wage a terror campaign on civilians, they fought soldiers, so what is there to apologize for on the whole?

Japan asking for an apology for the 2 bombs? Hey, they started the war by bombing pearl harbour. You don't see Germany asking for an apology for WWII...tho' what happened at Dresden was pretty horrible.

What Japan did to the Koreans and Chinese is akin to what the Nazis did to the Jews...a very big difference compared to your two points.

[Yaiba]

America's conduct in Vietnam was pretty sober, apart from incidents like My Lai, it wasn't part of US policy to kidnap women and force them into sexual slavery in field brothel or hold competitions to see how many ppl they could behead in a day. The US did not wage a terror campaign on civilians, they fought soldiers, so what is there to apologize for on the whole?

Japan asking for an apology for the 2 bombs? Hey, they started the war by bombing pearl harbour. You don't see Germany asking for an apology for WWII...tho' what happened at Dresden was pretty horrible.

What Japan did to the Koreans and Chinese is akin to what the Nazis did to the Jews...a very big difference compared to your two points.

It's funny you say this (see bold writing in above quote). The reason why I say so is because Pearl Harbor was strictly a military target, whereas the US logistic for the H-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was primarily all about displaying the power of their "new weapon" to the Japanese goverment and to force them to surrender... of course, the US achieved this but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians' lives, including women and children's. Furthermore, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and other major cities could be considered as "terror campaigns" as the US targets were mostly indiscriminate and contained heavily populated civilian districts.

I can't understand it (especially on December 7) when some Americans try to justify the use of atomic weapons on Japan because of Pearl Harbor... it's quite sad really. Besides, the reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the hope of destroying the US Navy's capabilities in the Pacific was because Japan was "pushed" to do it... the US placed a complete fuel embargo on Japan in response to the Japanese presence/occupation in Manchuria and Japan felt threatened by it. (On a sidenote, I read somewhere that the British intercepted Japanese radio messages and were aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor but Winston Churchill didn't warn the Americans about it... most probably to get them to enter the war in Europe, which he was lobbying Washington to do at the time.)

If you look at the current North Korean crisis, the same thing is happening... the US is threatening embargos and pushing the North Koreans further into a corner... no wonder the South is concerned and calling for the US to be more diplomatic because they realise the North will most probably retaliate like the Japanese did in WW2 if it continues.

As for Germans, many have started to question their generally-accepted history about WW2 and the Holocaust. With people like Ernst Zundel (go to http://www.zundelsite.org or similarly do a Google search), Revisionism is picking up pace, especially in eastern Germany, and the far-right political groups are gaining more and more influence. Who knows, it may be a matter of time before Germans start asking for apologies from mostly the UK and France, which actually declared war on Germany and started WW2 in the first place.

Lastly (phew, this is a long post)... are people aware that there were widespread collaborations between the Chinese and Korean officials with the Japanese occupiers before 1945? I actually sympathise with many of the victims at the hands of the Japanese but I've read on the internet recently that Chinese and Korean textbooks are failing to highlight these so-called facts because it won't provide their governments with leverage when it comes to criticising the Japanese.

I hate blame games... *sigh*

[KhawMengLee]

It's funny you say this (see bold writing in above quote). The reason why I say so is because Pearl Harbor was strictly a military target, whereas the US logistic for the H-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was primarily all about displaying the power of their "new weapon" to the Japanese goverment and to force them to surrender... of course, the US achieved this but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians' lives, including women and children's. Furthermore, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and other major cities could be considered as "terror campaigns" as the US targets were mostly indiscriminate and contained heavily populated civilian districts.

I can't understand it (especially on December 7) when some Americans try to justify the use of atomic weapons on Japan because of Pearl Harbor... it's quite sad really. Besides, the reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the hope of destroying the US Navy's capabilities in the Pacific was because Japan was "pushed" to do it... the US placed a complete fuel embargo on Japan in response to the Japanese presence/occupation in Manchuria and Japan felt threatened by it. (On a sidenote, I read somewhere that the British intercepted Japanese radio messages and were aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor but Winston Churchill didn't warn the Americans about it... most probably to get them to enter the war in Europe, which he was lobbying Washington to do at the time.)

If you look at the current North Korean crisis, the same thing is happening... the US is threatening embargos and pushing the North Koreans further into a corner... no wonder the South is concerned and calling for the US to be more diplomatic because they realise the North will most probably retaliate like the Japanese did in WW2 if it continues.

As for Germans, many have started to question their generally-accepted history about WW2 and the Holocaust. With people like Ernst Zundel (go to http://www.zundelsite.org or similarly do a Google search), Revisionism is picking up pace, especially in eastern Germany, and the far-right political groups are gaining more and more influence. Who knows, it may be a matter of time before Germans start asking for apologies from mostly the UK and France, which actually declared war on Germany and started WW2 in the first place.

Lastly (phew, this is a long post)... are people aware that there were widespread collaborations between the Chinese and Korean officials with the Japanese occupiers before 1945? I actually sympathise with many of the victims at the hands of the Japanese but I've read on the internet recently that Chinese and Korean textbooks are failing to highlight these so-called facts because it won't provide their governments with leverage when it comes to criticising the Japanese.

I hate blame games... *sigh*

Yeah, a lot of people have called the Hbomb on Japan many things, from a cheap way to win to a demonstration of power to the russians. At the same time its argued that from the loss of American lives in the Pacific they decided they needed something to totally shock the enemy into submission.
Both sides make valid points but the outcome is still the same, it happened.

As for the colaborations...yep, it happened. Just like in most occupied countries...eg, France, Poland, etc...but when the day of liberation came, these colaborators got the short stick.

[ISSAC RU]

.

I can't understand it (especially on December 7) when some Americans try to justify the use of atomic weapons on Japan because of Pearl Harbor... it's quite sad really. Besides, the reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the hope of destroying the US Navy's capabilities in the Pacific was because Japan was "pushed" to do it... the US placed a complete fuel embargo on Japan in response to the Japanese presence/occupation in Manchuria and Japan felt threatened by it. (On a sidenote, I read somewhere that the British intercepted Japanese radio messages and were aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor but Winston Churchill didn't warn the Americans about it... most probably to get them to enter the war in Europe, which he was lobbying Washington to do at the time.)

So....Are you saying Japan was ''pushed to attack'' which makes them
the rightious one? ....
Japan invaded China and Korea because she was ''pushed'' to do it..
Japan has the right to invade other countries and kill people because she
was ''pushed''?

Funny...I feel the same . America invaded Iraq because American
feels ''threatened'' that someday Iraqi might bomb washington with their
WMD.

Wow.......America was really being ''pushed''.. I guess invading Iraq was
the right thing to do after all............

[KhawMengLee]

So....Are you saying Japan was ''pushed to attack'' which makes them
the rightious one? ....
Japan invaded China and Korea because she was ''pushed'' to do it..
Japan has the right to invade other countries and kill people because she
was ''pushed''?

Funny...I feel the same . America invaded Iraq because American
feels ''threatened'' that someday Iraqi might bomb washington with their
WMD.

Wow.......America was really being ''pushed''.. I guess invading Iraq was
the right thing to do after all............

Japan annexed Korea and Manchuria waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Pearl Harbour. The atrocities at Nanking were captured by foriegn journalists who managed to smuggle out their photographs and stories to the world. It was this international outrage that played some part in the measures taken to 'pressure' japan to War with the US.

Many were already itching to step in and help China. For example, The Flying Tigers, went in before the War broke out to help fight the Japanese.

************************************************** ******

[Akai Bushi]

It all really comes down to colonialism. The western powers and Japan really didn't see China as anything other than resources and money. Japan was getting oil from the US and when the US cut off the oil supply Japan was in big trouble. They calculated that they had 6months or so left of oil for the Navy so basically Japan decide to go down with a fight. Then they attacked the US. The case of China and Korea they were just colonies for resources and exploitive capitalism. Japan had attacked China and taken Korea long before the embargo. This embargo though did push Japan to invade SE asia in hopes of getting new oil sources.

[Yaiba]

So....Are you saying Japan was ''pushed to attack'' which makes them
the rightious one? ....
Japan invaded China and Korea because she was ''pushed'' to do it..
Japan has the right to invade other countries and kill people because she
was ''pushed''?

Funny...I feel the same . America invaded Iraq because American
feels ''threatened'' that someday Iraqi might bomb washington with their
WMD.

Wow.......America was really being ''pushed''.. I guess invading Iraq was
the right thing to do after all............

Please, be a little more mature and don't jump to conclusions. I'll answer your questions one by one so you can understand (hopefully).

Yes, Japan was pushed to attack Pearl Harbor (ie the Americans) because the US placed an oil embargo and meddled in Japan's affairs. No, I'm not saying Japan is the righteous side; all I'm saying is that Japan simply responded to the actions of the US. I mean, do you really think Japan went into attacking Pearl Harbor just because it felt like it? If you do, you're crazy.

No, Japan was not "pushed" into invading China and Korea (besides, who would have pushed Japan anyway?). Yes, Japan probably had ambitions to build an empire like the Europeans had (the Japanese probably thought "if the Europeans can do it then why can't we?") but no, Japan did not have that right (nor should any other country for that matter) and the current Japanese are of that opinion, which is why they only have a self defence force.

Errr... I don't know how the Iraq War came into this conversation but not once did I justify the Iraq War. But yes, the Americans were obviously compelled to going into war with Iraq for a reason. Whether it was WMD, oil, Israel... I don't know.

If you'd paid attention, you should have grasped this: Every human action happens for a reason. Thus, there is cause and effect.

[KevinF]

To me, the bottom line is: IMHO, I don't feel it necessary, at this point, for any nations invloved in WWII to be still issuing any apologies for any actions. I don't need to hear about Germany apologizing for the holocost, nor do I need to hear about Japan and the Daigakusatsu (Nanjing Incident). There is a disconnect between the governments, the people, the culture and morals of that time and the present.

I'm frankly fed up with Korea and China trying to stem Japan's rightful place in Asia, mostly because of their own ambitions, and not because of real fear or resentment for incidents over 60 years ago. The riots and demonstrations recently in Shanghai and around China are an example of this - a deliberate move by the government in Beijing to stir up anti-Japanese resentment.

Issac is a hater who plays the shell game when he discuss anything. If the argument is about China, he will complain about the US. When its about the US, he'll bitch about something else.

This thread was oriingally about Takeshima, and the debate on that is resolved to my satisfaction. If you want to takl about other islands, fine.

When will China give up bogus claims to the Spratley Islands?

[rainmaker]

Those who think Japan did their official appologies should read this article. It is written by MIT Phd... Very insightful article.

MIDDLE PERIOD, 1965-1989
JAPANESE REMEMBRANCE. Japanese remembrance remained unapologetic during this period. Japanese leaders occasionally issued statements about the past, which included halfhearted apologies. Foreign Minister Shiina Etsusaburo issued a weak apology in Seoul upon normalization of relations in 1965. Referring to no specific events, Shiina said Japan “felt deep regret and deep remorse” for the “unhappy phase” between the two countries.52 Subsequent statements given by Emperor Hirohito and Prime Minister Nakasone in 1984 similarly conveyed remorse but admitted no specific Japanese wrongdoing.53 Also during this period, other government officials made statements of denial. Cabinet members Fujio Masayuki (1986)54 and Okuno Seisuke (1988)55 made statements that provoked crises with Japan’s neighbors during this period, and led to their dismissal from their posts. In history education, discussion of the wartime past first expanded and then contracted during this period. In the 1970s, textbook coverage of the war and colonization began to increase.56 This trend provoked a counter-reaction in the 1980s as conservative politicians—regaining power in the Diet—sought to make Japanese education more patriotic.



MoE screening and revision of textbooks in this decade resulted in vaguer terminology being adopted. In response to international criticism, Tokyo adopted new textbook screening policies to promote greater admission,58 but textbook coverage of Japanese aggression and atrocities remained sparse. A conservative group angered by the conciliation of the Suzuki Administration in the 1982 textbook dispute wrote its own textbook; its approval by the MoE sparked a second diplomatic dispute over textbooks in 1986.

Japanese commemoration was unapologetic during the 1980s: it continued to ignore foreign victims, and began increasingly glorifying Japan’s war dead. In 1985, Nakasone Yasuhiro became the first Prime Minister to pay an official visit to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine.59 In response to regional criticism, Nakasone—and subsequent prime ministers in this period—did not visit the shrine again, but numerous cabinet members and Diet members continued to visit.



Overall Japanese remembrance in the 1965-1989 period remained unapologetic.

Remembrance of past Japanese aggression and atrocities did increase in frequency relative to the earlier period, but ranged between weak apologies to denial, with glorification of the war dead at the unapologetic extreme.

[rainmaker]

I am not trying to blame second or third generation of Japanese who got nothing to do with WW II. Sometime, people claiming that hey Japan did 18 apologies, isn't that enough ? Sometimes, number is not just enough..

=======================================

LATE PERIOD, 1990-2000S
JAPANESE REMEMBRANCE. Japanese remembrance of war and colonization evolved dramatically in this period. Tokyo began regularly issuing apologies—some of them quite remarkable. Numerous high-level leaders issued remorseful statements: Emperor Akihito and Prime Minister Kaifu (1989),81 and Prime Ministers Miyazawa (1992) and Murayama (1994 and ’95).82 The Socialist Party (members of the ruling coalition in 1995) attempted to pass a contrite
Diet Resolution that year, and passed a tepid statement.83 Far more remarkable were apologies issued by Hosokawa (1993) and Koizumi (2001), which included both detailed admission and remorse.84 Other apologies included substantive measures: the 1995 Murayama apology to the
sex slaves of the Imperial Army (accompanied by compensation and the establishment of an educational foundation),85 and the written apology by Prime Minister Obuchi (the 1998 Joint Communique with South Korea).86 Thus in this period Japan began regularly issuing numerous statements of apology, ranging from lukewarm to remarkably apologetic.

Japanese statements during this period were far from uniform. Reacting to Murayama’s contrite statements, cabinet members Nagano Shigeto and Sakurai Shin made statements of denial in 1994;87 other Japanese Cabinet Members and parliamentarians made similar statements in objection to Murayama’s 1995 apology.88 Angered by the Diet Resolution, Watanabe Michio, a former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, denied that Japan took over Korea through force in 1910.89 In the 1990s a distinct pattern emerged in which one leader’s apology triggered a statement by another leading politician that denied, justified, or glorified Japan’s past actions. Still, as argued above, Japanese statements of apology during this period increased relative to the earlier period.

Japanese education in this period reflects increased coverage of Japanese actions during the war. Discussion of the sex slaves, the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese colonization of Korea, and Korean slave labor now appears in textbooks. Coverage of Unit 731 (a Japanese Army unit that performed grotesque medical experiments on Chinese civilians and POWs) was
recently approved after a ruling in the Japanese courts. For many of these issues, coverage remains scanty; depending on the textbook, these issues might be omitted, mentioned vaguely, or presented in moderate detail.90 And certain Japanese actions during the war remain consistently omitted from textbooks, such as Japan’s strategic bombing of Chinese cities (which killed nearly 300,000 Chinese people), and biological warfare against Chinese citizens.91 A controversial textbook was also published during this period by a group who resented the 1996 legal ruling that permitted mention of the sex slaves in Japanese textbooks. MoE approval of this textbook (known as the “Fuso-sha” textbook after its publisher) caused a third textbook dispute in 2001. However, while Japanese textbooks in the later period do not present detailed discussions of Japan’s past, they do provide more thorough coverage of colonization and war relative to other periods.
Japanese commemoration in the late period remains unapologetic. Museums do not educate the public about victims of Japanese aggression or atrocities. Monuments and museums, such as the recently refurbished Yushukan museum, reflect amnesia or glorification about Japanese atrocities and colonization in East Asia.93 During this period Japanese Prime Ministers
resumed visiting the Yasukuni Shrine (Hashimoto in 1996, and Koizumi in 2001 and 2002). In sum, Japanese remembrance of the late period (1990s-2000s) is moderately apologetic.

[KevinF]

Rainmaker,

I'm sorry, but that whole article is biased against Japan. What MIT professor wrote that garbage?

The use of adjectives like "tepid", "weak," "moderate" call the ambitions and the bias of the writer into question.

Much of the writing is twisted as well. The protrayal of the textbook discussion of Japanese wartime atrocities as "sparse" is *very* subjective. How much detail about this do you think is necessary in junior high schools? Here in the U.S., for example, world history is usually required as a ninth-grade class (high school) and U.S. history is taken in 10th or 11th grades.

Most of history classes in Japanese junior high school focus on pre 20th century Japan. That's just the way it is. The same happens here in the U.S. by the way, as it does in the other country I can speak about from experience: Germany. Discussion of more recent events and history is reserved for the last by design, and the textbooks that are protested in China and Korea have always been the junior high school textbooks.

I really don't see how this left-wing, apologist, crackpot professor is in any position to demand that the "Japanese strategic bombings of Chinese cities" be put into the textbooks designed for children 12-15 years of age, which is exactly what he does by discussing its absence.

[rainmaker]

Her name is Jennifer Lind. This is her resume.

B.A., English, University of California, Berkeley
M.A., Pacific International Affairs, University of California, San Diego
Ph.D., Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

You can google search her stuff. She also wrote other articel and research but some of them are not negative about Japan.

She is not Korean nor Japanese. How can you tell that she is biased but you are not ???

Rainmaker,

I'm sorry, but that whole article is biased against Japan. What MIT professor wrote that garbage?

The use of adjectives like "tepid", "weak," "moderate" call the ambitions and the bias of the writer into question.

Much of the writing is twisted as well. The protrayal of the textbook discussion of Japanese wartime atrocities as "sparse" is *very* subjective. How much detail about this do you think is necessary in junior high schools? Here in the U.S., for example, world history is usually required as a ninth-grade class (high school) and U.S. history is taken in 10th or 11th grades.

Most of history classes in Japanese junior high school focus on pre 20th century Japan. That's just the way it is. The same happens here in the U.S. by the way, as it does in the other country I can speak about from experience: Germany. Discussion of more recent events and history is reserved for the last by design, and the textbooks that are protested in China and Korea have always been the junior high school textbooks.

I really don't see how this left-wing, apologist, crackpot professor is in any position to demand that the "Japanese strategic bombings of Chinese cities" be put into the textbooks designed for children 12-15 years of age, which is exactly what he does by discussing its absence.

[samurai999]

Her name is Jennifer Lind. This is her resume.

B.A., English, University of California, Berkeley
M.A., Pacific International Affairs, University of California, San Diego
Ph.D., Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

You can google search her stuff. She also wrote other articel and research but some of them are not negative about Japan.

She is not Korean nor Japanese. How can you tell that she is biased but you are not ???

Figures, its an english major from berzerkeley.

Tim

[KevinF]

Yes, this is the chick who wrote the article we discussed earlier - about 100 posts back (last week). She lived in Japan, but also taught at a Korean University. She's impressive...

impressively liberal that is. Come on, UCal Berkley and then MIT. Not sure you could name too more leftist schools in the country. He theory is that "acts of contrition serve as confidence-building measures between former adversaries." Fine. That's nice. The reality is that no matter what Japan said or did, it would never be reported objectively in China. Anyone disagree? I doubt it would be played objectively in Korea either - both countries are too busy hating, and both have something to gain from trying to keep Japan out of a leading role in asia.

I don't like her use of very subjective terms throughout her analysis.

By the way, the embassy of Japan and MoFA has the texts of the apologies and statements made by Japanese PMs and government officials online. Read them yourself.

The point is and was - it will never be enough for some people. Japan could apologize 100 times, grovel on the floor weeping for the sins of generations past, fill of coffers the aged victims all over the world, and it would never be enough for Korea and China.

When are China or Korea going to apologize to Japan for being collective asses?

[KevinF]

and rainmaker, just posting Lind's résumé doesn't take anything away from the rest of the post. Asking who the nutjob professor was only my first question, and your extensive quote of her called her authority and identity into question.