It's official - Japan not aggressor in China or WWII

World War II Japanese Military
#1

It’s interesting how the international community tolerates this self-serving, face-saving, self-pitying historical rubbish from Japanese leaders. Imagine the international response, particularly in Europe and the UK, if Angela Merkel announced that Germany’s wartime actions should not be defined as aggression.

INSIGHT: Abe stands firm on definition of ‘aggression’ amid international outcry

May 10, 2013

By KAZUO YAMAGISHI/ Staff Writer

Government officials thought they had found a way to quell the international criticism that erupted after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe suggested that Japan’s wartime actions should not be defined as “aggression.”

Abe, however, did not follow their script. Although he says Japan caused much damage and suffering before and during World War II, he has refused to acknowledge “aggression” on the part of the Japanese military.

His stance on the nature of Japan’s military actions differs from those of his predecessors. It even contradicts his own opinion stated when he was prime minister the first time around.

The source of his inflexibility over the “aggression” issue may have been the criticism lodged against him from the international community, especially from the country with which Abe has gone all out to appease.

“The prime minister ended up becoming stubborn (on the issue) because he felt antipathy to the U.S. reaction,” said an official close to the Japanese government.

The latest controversy began when Abe told an Upper House Budget Committee session on April 23 that what constitutes aggression has not been settled.

He was referring to the 1995 statement under Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama that was released to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II.

“Japan … through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations,” the statement said.

Abe, however, took issue with the word “aggression” in the statement.

“The definition of aggression has yet to be established in academia or in the international community,” Abe told the Upper House session. “Things that happened between nations will look differently depending on which side you view them from.”

South Korea, which Japan colonized from 1910 to 1945, reacted strongly to Abe’s remarks, saying the Japanese leader was again denying the truth about Japan’s past.

Following the fierce backlash from Seoul, the prime minister’s office and the Foreign Ministry worked together to prepare Abe’s answers to a question in the May 8 session of the Upper House Budget Committee, according to sources.

The officials planned to have Abe clarify that the Japanese government has never said there was no aggression in World War II.

However, Abe decided on his own to neither read the officials’ prepared text nor discuss aggression at the Diet session, according to senior government officials.

But he did say: “Japan caused great damage and suffering to the people of many nations, particularly to those of Asian nations. I have the same perception as that of past Cabinets.”

Japan endorsed the 1974 U.N. General Assembly resolution on the definition of aggression. The resolution states that an invasion of a state by the armed forces of another state–a violation of the U.N. Charter–is top on the list of aggressive acts. But it also states that the U.N. Security Council may ultimately determine acts of aggression.

At the May 8 session, Abe said the U.N. General Assembly’s definition is reference material for the U.N. Security Council, particularly its dominant members.

“Regrettably, issues are resolved politically at the U.N. Security Council,” he said. “Permanent members have veto rights.”

Japan first acknowledged its wartime aggression in 1993, when Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa became leader of the first Japanese government not led by the Liberal Democratic Party since 1955.

Two years later, Murayama, leader of the Japan Socialist Party, released the statement as head of the coalition government comprising the JSP, LDP and New Party Sakigake.

The Murayama statement, which expresses “remorse” and “apology” for Japan’s militarism, has served as the fundamental document for the Japanese government’s stance toward war.

All succeeding prime ministers adopted this policy line, including Junichiro Koizumi, who angered China and South Korea for visiting war-related Yasukuni Shrine, and Abe, when he held the nation’s top post from 2006 to 2007.

At the Lower House Budget Committee on Oct. 5, 2006, Abe, as prime minister, said the Murayama statement admitted Japan’s “colonial rule and aggression” and offered an apology to the people victimized.

“I support the Japanese government’s stance (shown by the Murayama statement),” he said at the time.

But Abe has been long skeptical about the argument that Japan’s colonial rule and aggression caused considerable damage to many Asian nations.

When he returned to power in December after the LDP’s landslide victory in the Lower House election, he expressed his intention to issue a new government statement in 2015, the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.

At the April 22 session of the Upper House Budget Committee, he said his administration “has not necessarily embraced the Murayama statement in its entirety.”

Abe’s series of comments alarmed South Korean President Park Geun-hye.

In a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on May 7, Park stressed the need for Japan to have an accurate perception of history for peace in Northeast Asia. Leaders rarely discuss relations with third countries in bilateral summits.

Park further pushed the agenda by raising the history issue in her address at the U.S. Congress on May 8.

Although Abe is used to criticism from South Korea, he did not expect a report released on May 1 by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that said Abe’s perceptions of history could end up hurting U.S. interests, according to Japanese sources.

The report titled “Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress” said U.S. officials welcome Abe’s position to allow for Japan’s participation in collective self-defense.

“Other statements, however, suggest that Abe embraces a revisionist view of Japanese history that rejects the narrative of imperial Japanese aggression and victimization of other Asian nations,” the report said.

Abe, who is bringing Japan to negotiations for the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade arrangement and is pushing for a solution to stalled relocation of a U.S. military base in Okinawa Prefecture, was surprised by the report, the sources said.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga criticized the report on May 9, saying its descriptions of Abe were based on “misunderstanding.”

“Japan has striven to achieve peace and prosperity,” Suga told a news conference.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201305100092

#2

Relevant sections of Congressional Report mentioned in previous post.

Abe and History Issues

During his year-long stint as prime minister in 2006-2007, Abe was known for his nationalist
rhetoric and advocacy for more muscular positions on defense and security matters. Some of
Abe’s positions—such as changing the interpretation of Japan’s pacifist constitution to allow for
Japanese participation in collective self-defense—were largely welcomed by U.S. officials eager
to advance military cooperation. Other statements, however, suggest that Abe embraces a
revisionist view of Japanese history that rejects the narrative of imperial Japanese aggression and
victimization of other Asians. He has been involved with groups arguing that Japan has been
unjustly criticized for its behavior as a colonial and wartime power. Among the positions
advocated by these groups, such as Nippon Kaigi Kyokai , are that Japan should be applauded for
liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers, that the 1946-1948 Tokyo War
Crimes tribunals were illegitimate, and that the killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the
1937 “Nanjing massacre” were exaggerated or fabricated. Historical issues have long colored
Japan’s relationships with its neighbors, particularly China and South Korea, who remain
resentful of Japan’s occupation and belligerence during the World War II period. Abe’s selections
for his Cabinet appear to reflect these views, as he chose a number of politicians well-known for
advocating nationalist, and in some cases ultra-nationalist views.

The previous DPJ government adopted a more conciliatory view of Japan’s past and worked to
mend historical wounds with South Korea and China. In August 2010, the 100th anniversary of
Japan’s annexation of the Korean Peninsula, then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan renewed Japan’s
apology for its treatment of Koreans during colonial rule, and offered to return historical
documents and other artifacts taken from Korea. Until the end of their time in power, DPJ leaders
also avoided visiting the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, a shrine that honors Japan’s wartime dead
and includes several Class A war criminals. Visits to the shrine by LDP Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi had severely strained Tokyo’s relationships with Beijing and Seoul in the early and mid-
2000s. In April 2013, a large group of lawmakers, including three cabinet ministers, visited
Yasukuni, again drawing protests from China and South Korea.

Abe last visited the Yasukuni Shrine in October 2012, after he was elected president of the LDP
but before the parliamentary elections that made him prime minister. Many analysts say that
Abe’s re-ascension to the premiership risks inflaming regional relations, which could disrupt
regional trade integration, threaten security cooperation among U.S. allies, and further exacerbate
already tense relations with China. Abe is under pressure from the Japan Restoration Party, a new,
fiercely nationalist party that won the third largest number of seats in the Diet. On the other hand,
during his last stint as prime minister, Abe successfully repaired ties with South Korea and China
and is regarded by some observers as a pragmatic politician. Since becoming prime minister, he
has not repeated his calls while in opposition to station Japanese civilians on the Senkaku Islands
and to designate a national “Takeshima Day” to promote Japan’s assertion of sovereignty over the
Dokdo/Takeshima island that is controlled by South Korea. Although relations with China are far
more problematic now, he recently sent an envoy to reach out to the new government in South
Korea, raising hopes that relations will not deteriorate significantly.

Comfort Women Issue

Abe’s statements on the so-called “comfort women”—sex slaves used by the Japanese imperial
military during its conquest and colonization of several Asian countries in the 1930s and 1940s—
have been criticized by other regional powers and the U.S. House of Representatives in a 2007
resolution. Abe has suggested that his government might consider revising a 1993 official
Japanese apology for its treatment of these women, a move that would be sure to degrade Tokyo’s
relations with South Korea and other countries.

In the past, Abe has supported the claims made by many on the right in Japan that the women
were not directly coerced into service by the Japanese military. When he was prime minister in
2006-2007, Abe voiced doubts about the validity of the 1993 “Kono Statement,” an official
statement issued by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono that apologized to the victims and
admitted responsibility by the Japanese military. As the U.S. House of Representatives considered
H.Res. 121 (110th Congress), calling on the Japanese government to “formally acknowledge,
apologize, and accept historical responsibility” for forcing young women into military
prostitution, Abe appeared to soften his commentary and asserted that he would stand by the
statement. The House later overwhelmingly endorsed the resolution. Then-Deputy Chief Cabinet
Secretary Hakubun Shimomura had been leading the movement to revise the statement; Abe
recently appointed him Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.

The issue of the so-called comfort women has gained visibility in the United States, due primarily
to Korean-American activist groups. These groups have pressed successfully for the erection of
monuments commemorating the victims, passage of a resolution on the issue by the New York
State Senate, and the naming of a city street in the New York City borough of Queens in honor of
the victims. In addition, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly instructed the State
Department to refer to the women as “sex slaves,” rather than the euphemistic term “comfort
women.”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33436.pdf pp. 5-7

#3

Yeah, well… who started it…it was like shooting fish in a barrel - provoking confrontation with such rigid/tightly wound predictable tin robots…

How much Churchill/Roosevelt/MacArthur all under-estimated in their racist way - was where the military/political damage was done…

#4

Oddly enough, there has been a recent scholarly [albeit TV-style] re-appraisal of the Churchill/Stalin
relationship shown here… & Churchill was given frank advice to curtail his natural distain for peasantry
&/or the Communist dictator & recognise a fellow rat-politician…to cut a [dirty]deal…

#5

Another aspect - Germany’s attitude is being kept an eye on by those countries close to her who suffered during WW2. While a small number of those same countries suffered during WW2 from Japan (France, UK, Netherlands), the colonies they had rapidly became independent after WW2 - and so their interest in the region lessened. Net result? They really don’t pay as much attention to what Japan says about WW2 nowadays.

However, Japan is also being kept an eye on by those countries (now independent) it invaded during WW2 - particularly China and Korea. Who as I understand it regularly raise massive objections to the way Japan treats WW2. However, since neither of those countries has English as a major language, what we hear about this is necessarily rather limited.

#6

Good points, & of course being an island nation, Nippon largely escaped the national boundary changes,
territorial loss & ethnic cleansing that befell Germany…

Although Germany does seem to have learned something from both USA & Japan…

70 years after the zenith of the ‘1,000 year Reich’ …

A.Merkel’s reunited rump of greater Germany has established a form of
‘Pan-European Co-prosperity sphere’… via the Euro…

& along with USA , maintain by [blood-guilt] money …the modern equivalent of the ‘Outremer’ state…
…the state of Israel…

#7

Rather different - it was achieved by diplomacy rather than force of arms, and the level of control Germany has over it is massively lower than either Japan or Germany had during WW2 (indeed, the structure is such that the other nations have some level of control over Germany - something unthinkable in the WW2 context).

<troll antennae twitching> You’re confusing cause and effect here - the effect is to help sustain Israel somewhat (although the support from Germany seems mainly to be in the form of submarines - something fairly useless unless Israel is attacked on a large scale), but the cause is a German desire for reparation, rather than a desire to sustain some sort of crusader state.

#8

Could you elaborate, as I’m utterly ignorant on this point? (Yeah, I know it’s just one of countless points on which I’m utterly ignorant. :frowning: )

Is this real support, or just being seen to be doing something?

I would have thought that Israel’s major needs relate to air attack and defence at home and in the wider region, closely followed by various forms of ground attack and defence supported by air at home and in the region.

#9

I though Israel flew a number of Me109’s and received substantial numbers of German small arms?

*after checking, they actually flew the Czech derivative of the Me109…

#10

The current Israeli submarine fleet was built in Germany and largely paid for by the German government (100% for the first two, 50% for the third and ~30% for the final three). Exactly why the Germans are paying is open to debate - it all kicked off after the Germans got caught supplying chemical weapons plants to Saddam Hussein in 1990, but I suspect the fact it has continued is more to do with the holocaust and keeping HDW in business.

#11

Face it, Japan’s shameless lying about its role before and during WW2 is well documented and beneath contempt. I think it tell us a lot about about the Japanese character, and frankly, after years of reading this rubbish, all I need to know about the Japanese who never cease trying to exculpate themselves.

#12

I don’t think that denial of Japan’s part in the war is part of the Japanese character or that all, or even most, Japanese people nowadays are guilty of it as a consequence of a defect in their character.

The problem, which goes back to MacArthur allowing much of the old regime (starting with Hirohito who was up to his neck in taking the nation to war) to run the country post-war, stems from those people and their descendants in positions of power in conservative political parties and other positions of influence refusing to accept Japan’s guilt, and then corrupting the teaching of history in Japan since the 1950s, although that wasn’t the case in the first decade or so after the war.

I suspect that a significant motivation for that conduct relates to ‘loss of face’ if they admit that their conduct was wrong, which is certainly part of the Japanese character.

The average Japanese person nowadays is not guilty of denying Japan’s part in the war but is a victim of the corruption of his or her nation’s history by the same sort of elements which took Japan to war, which MacArthur stupidly allowed to run Japan under the Occupation so that they maintained their power base and attitudes (starting with Japan as a victim of Western oppression being forced to go to war rather than having colonial ambitions in Asia and the Pacific which it thought it could achieve while the European colonial powers were defeated - France, Netherlands - or were facing defeat - Britain) , less a few war criminals hanged after the war.

The average Japanese person’s ignorance of Japan’s war conduct is not a wilful refusal to accept historical fact but a consequence of a system they don’t control concealing the truth from them and presenting them with a different version to historical fact.

This is compounded by a ‘group think’ tendency to conformity of thought in Japan and a corresponding absence of a willingness to challenge the official version, but that is by no means common to all Japanese as there have been many who have sought to challenge the corrupted version of history put forward by the successors to the militarists etc who took Japan to war.

The objectionable statements about Japan’s part in the war come from the successors to the militarists etc and other conservative elements in Japanese politics and other positions of influence, not from the average Japanese person and not from all Japanese politicians or people of influence.

It’s not so much a universally Japanese problem but a problem with a disturbingly powerful and dominant element in Japanese politics and society which does not necessarily represent the thinking and character of all Japanese, although unfortunately it has managed to corrupt their knowledge of history and therefore their thinking.

That element also happens to be the one which has received unwavering support from the US and to a fair extent from the other English speaking Allies who were the victims of Japan’s atrocities in WWII, which at government to government levels appear to be capable of being ignored or forgotten as long as the militarists etc post-war maintained their opposition to communism and nowadays serve the useful purpose of … What?

Opposing rising China?

Opposing North Korea?

Yeah, probably. :frowning:

#13

Hmmmm, Rising Sun, I must needs demur, LOL. Willful ignorance of the truth in the internet age? Hard to believe to say the least. The US does a lot of stupid things, but laying Japanese blame-avoidance on the doorstep of America is rather suspect to say the least. I’m reminded of the infantile Japanese “academics” who determined that the American destroyer that fired on a Japanese midget submarine sneaking into Pearl Harbor (the sub was recently found), fired the first shot in the Pacific War and “therefore” Japan did not start it. These are mature historians and professors? Get real.

#14

Unless the Japanese are spectacularly different to the rest of the world, the vast bulk of them get their knowledge of their national history from their primary and secondary school education and have little or no interest in reading about it once they’ve left school.

The controversy surrounding the adoption of middle school history textbooks in Japan raises the question, Why are textbooks—history textbooks in particular—important enough to fight over? Historians Laura Hein and Mark Selden tell us that “history and civics textbooks in most societies present an ‘official’ story highlighting narratives that shape contemporary patriotism”; "people fight over textbook content because education is so obviously about the future, reaches so deeply into society, and is directed by the state. Because textbooks are carried into neighborhood schools and homes, and because, directly or indirectly, they carry the imprimatur of the state, they have enormous authority.
http://spice.stanford.edu/docs/134

The quote is entirely consistent with the history wars fought by politicians and others in my country over the past few decades over issues such as the treatment of our Aborigines, where the desire by conservatives to avoid admitting past wrongs affecting people still living is little different to what has happened in Japan about its war history in quality, although not in scale.

As for the internet age, unless young Japanese are spectacularly different to their contemporaries in other countries they won’t be poring over history sites but will be playing games, looking at Facebook, YouTube, porn, and so on.

The ruling conservatives in post-war Japan recognised the importance of forming a national view of history which avoided Japan’s war guilt, which is precisely why they controlled history text books to ensure that each generation from the mid-1950s grew up thinking Japan was a victim of Western aggression and didn’t do anything wrong, and whitewashing events such as the Nanking massacres and magically presenting Japan as the poor little victim of undeserved atomic attacks.

Those politicians and bureaucrats would not have been in positions to carry out such a policy had MacArthur implemented a policy in Japan equivalent to denazification in Europe instead of allowing most of the crew who took Japan to war and their heirs to continue to run it after the war for most of the time right up to the present day, and for the foreseeable future. MacArthur wasn’t responsible for the surrender terms which allowed Hirohito to retain his throne but he was responsible for energetic activity to save the little bastard from the noose he richly deserved. That was equivalent to exculpating Hitler and, had he lived, saving him from facing a war crimes / crimes against humanity trial.

MacArthur happily presented himself as the architect of post-war Japan, and he was. And what we have now is a direct consequence of the inadequate foundations he foolishly laid.

I didn’t say Americans were responsible for that. MacArthur was.

America and its English speaking Allies are responsible for not objecting strenuously to the continuance of war guilt denial in the period since the 1950s, because it suited us to overlook it to curry favour with the conservative anti-communist elements in Japan during the Cold War, starting in the late 1940s when America and Britain decided to abandon war crimes trials.

If the same approach had been adopted in Germany, Albert Speer would have been the Minister for Industry, if not Chancellor, by the mid-1950s instead of being in gaol for another decade.

#15

The Japanese don’t have a monopoly on politically dictated academic statements of profound stupidity.

Around the 1980s down here we had a secondary school textbook written by some leftist ****wit(s) who referred to soldiers as, and I kid you not, “harmworkers”.

#16

Oooh, “harmworkers”. That’s rich. That’s taking “political correctitude” a tad far.

#17

Well…funnily enough, some eager participants do acknowledge that harmful actions toward the enemy
was their duty, purpose & yes, fun… & could be likened to the virtual computer games now available… except
in the level of actual harm/risk involved…

#18

Meetav.com is the only free Asian Porn tube website supporting HTML 5 video on the Apple iPad (2,3) and Mini / N, anorunning in Apple’s Safari iPad Web Browser, also many Andriod, Windows Phones and Tablets. Whether you want to see Big Tits, Party, Drunk, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Hentai, Hardcore, Hardcore, MILF, Pornstars, POV, Public, Reality, Threesome, Big ****,AV, Rape, Blondes,Cumshot,Gangbang,Celebrity, Blow Job, Asian, Latina, DP, Hidden Camera, Escort, Teens, Amateurs, Ebony, Anal, Group, Lesbian, Feet, Fetish, Masturbation, Sex Toys or anything other kind of porn. Japanese Porn