Japanese Revisionism: Latest episode

World War II Japanese Military
#61

If Japan wasn’t the aggressor in WWII, I’d hate to see what would have happened if it was.

By 1941, USA, UK and Netherlands had been actively conducting economic warfare against Japan for 7 years, via the oil companies of their respective nations.
You can find a little, simplified part of it here:
.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=4A0C2A6213D3528A0BB07E7B79C71B07.inst1_1a?docId=97732439
cut from a 1975 paper by Thomas Breslin(and i wasnt allowed to post a link so add a www to the above and hope it works). It doesnt give the full picture but even it, based on the papertrail from official sources in USAs govt(which became declassified shortly before the article), is plenty enough to give Japan a casus belli.

If the situation was the opposite, USA most certainly would have considered it a casus belli. And historically, USA have started wars for much less serious economical or other sorts of indirect warfare.

And while Japan certainly isnt exactly the best at accepting its past, the attitude tends to be far more of a “-lets not bury us under such a long past dishonorable past, but instead look towards a better future” rather than attempts at actually falsifying anything. And really, 2 generations after the war, is it really something that the younger Japanese today have anything what so ever to do with?

If so, then americans today are still also responsible for anything from civillian deaths in Iraq, the now commonly used practise of torture via the creation of dictatures in Vietnam or Nicaragua to the forced annexation of Hawaii and the wars of conquest against Spain or Mexico.

Why is it that according to you, generational guilt is applicable to Japan but not to USA?

And BTW, the Pacific war wasnt really the same as the European one, it just happened to be very convenient for Japan to fight it while USA/UK et al were distracted, making the axis pact advantageous but without much real or direct political or ideological closeness with Germany or Italy, even if overlapping.

  1. If there are any war criminals. Try those who did atrocities. Nuremburg was the right answer.

Ah yes, you mean like the Japanese general who was convicted for crimes comitted in his area of command, against his specific orders while he wasnt there? Are you under the delusion that there were no “war criminals” judged among the Japanese? The “funny” thing is that some of the worst actual Japanese war criminals avoided punishment completely because they were too valuable scientifically or USA, while a whole bunch of higher commanders, some even with almost spotless records were put on trial and convicted of makebelieve crimes, or of crimes they had little or nothing to do with.

And Nuremburg was almost a joke. Oh some of the convictions were certainly very well earned and even properly handled in a legal sense, but all too much was an exercise in making sure there were properly EVIL scapegoats handy.

#62

First of all, I think it would be useful if you defined just what you mean by “economic warfare”. Raising tariffs to protect one’s own industries was quite common in the 1930’s and does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute “economic warfare”. Britain organized the Commonwealth countries into a closed trading bloc in the early 1930’s, but this was not directed at Japan, and did not constitute “economic warfare” against Japan.

The Netherlands East Indies (NEI) were selling oil products to Japan until Japan signed the Tripartite Pact in September, 1940, thus becoming an ally of Nazi Germany, the same Nazi Germany which had ignored Holland’s neutrality and occupied the Home country of the NEI. Thereafter, the NEI authorities refused to sell oil to any ally of Germany on the grounds that it might be resold to the occupier of it’s Home country. This certainly was prudent, but again, did not constitute “economic warfare” against Japan.

Until 1940, the US and Japan had a trade treaty which essentially granted Japan “most favored nation” status. However, Japan had, since 1931, consistently engaged in acts of military aggression which not only threatened peace in the Asian region, but US commercial and security interests in the area. Under these circumstances the US could not justify extending the treaty beyond it’s original expiration date, although the Roosevelt administration agreed to continue observing the treaty provisions on an interim basis, contingent on Japan’s not engaging in acts hostile to US interests.

Japan however, continued it’s military aggression against several countries in the region and occupied territories belonging to other counties. In July, 1940, Japan occupied southern Indochina and established airfields which put it’s aircraft within striking range of Malaya, Singapore, Borneo, and the NEI. The US had intercepted and decrypted Japanese messages which revealed that this step was preparatory to conducting a surprise military offensive against these areas, as well as, the Philippines. This was not only an act of war, but a violation of international law.

The Roosevelt administration had, in 1940, embargoed certain items which were considered war materials because Japan was using these materials to pursue aggressive war against other nations. In July, 1941, Roosevelt, in response to Japan’s occupation of southern Indochina, froze Japanese assets in the US; Britain and the Netherlands followed suit. This prevented almost all trade between these countries and Japan, but did NOT constitute “economic warfare”. No nation can be expected to continue trading with a country which is hostile to it’s interests, especially when such trade facilitates that hostility. This is just plain common sense. Accusations of “economic warfare” against Japan since 1934 are nonsense and ignore the salient facts of the matter.

That’s understatement to the point of deception.

Japan has never acknowledged it’s responsibility for the Pacific war and the millions of people it murdered in it’s campaign of national aggrandizement. Until it does, there is no point in looking to the future or pretending that such events did not take place. It is a crime, on top of their original crimes, to let two generations pass without such an acknowledgment. It is up to the present generation of Japanese to rectify this situation as they are the only ones who can do so; they are the ones who will continue to suffer the approbation of the rest of the world if they neglect this duty.

If you really want to raise these matters, I suggest you start a thread in the Off Topic forum. These matters have nothing whatsoever to do with WW II or the Japanese responsibility for the war.

There is some truth in this statement, however, the Japanese themselves saw fit to establish an alliance with Nazi Germany which for better or worse, caused Germany and Italy to declare war on the US and forever linked the European and Pacific wars in the minds of Americans.

Which Japanese general might that be? Is there some reason you can’t be more specific and name him?

While it is true that some Japanese escaped justice due to “plea bargains” with US authorities, the majority were punished in accordance with international law. Again, if you wish to have your points taken seriously, please name those Japanese with “spotless records” who were tried and “convicted of make believe” crimes, or who were convicted of crimes with which they had nothing to do.

#63

Probably General Yamashita, found guilty on the basis of command responsibility rather than as an actor in war crimes.

#64

Yes, I thought Yamashita might be the one Tenshinai was referring to, but I didn’t want to jump to a premature conclusion in case he had another example in mind.

#65

Poor poor Japan. If only they could have committed genocide against the Chinese with impunity!

#66

First of all, I think it would be useful if you defined just what you mean by “economic warfare”. Raising tariffs to protect one’s own industries was quite common in the 1930’s and does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute “economic warfare”. Britain organized the Commonwealth countries into a closed trading bloc in the early 1930’s, but this was not directed at Japan, and did not constitute “economic warfare” against Japan.

Using commercial and to a lesser degree political means to essentially place an embargo on important raw materials against Japan is what it means.
It never became a total embargo, but its one of the main reasons Japan had such extreme difficulty in getting access to vital alloy metals. Which is for example one of the reasons for using the very strange metal they used for building Zero´s with. Sure it wasnt really bad, as its crystallisation over time was something nobody expected to need dealing with, but the material was NOT good.

You could have started by reading the link i tried to provide(but couldnt give fully due to the forum not allowing me).

The Netherlands East Indies (NEI) were selling oil products to Japan until Japan signed the Tripartite Pact in September, 1940, thus becoming an ally of Nazi Germany, the same Nazi Germany which had ignored Holland’s neutrality and occupied the Home country of the NEI. Thereafter, the NEI authorities refused to sell oil to any ally of Germany on the grounds that it might be resold to the occupier of it’s Home country. This certainly was prudent, but again, did not constitute “economic warfare” against Japan.

They were not selling freely, not at regular price and they did it because at this time NEI didnt have any other means to survive.
From 1934 up until Holland falling, things were a bit less “happy” concerning NEIs relationship with Japan.

Until 1940, the US and Japan had a trade treaty which essentially granted Japan “most favored nation” status. However, Japan had, since 1931, consistently engaged in acts of military aggression which not only threatened peace in the Asian region, but US commercial and security interests in the area. Under these circumstances the US could not justify extending the treaty beyond it’s original expiration date, although the Roosevelt administration agreed to continue observing the treaty provisions on an interim basis, contingent on Japan’s not engaging in acts hostile to US interests.

Thats oversimplified and not exactly descriptive of the situation.

USA sold large amounts of iron and steel scrap to Japan, along with oil at a very happy price(for those selling it that is). Why do you think it was totally impossible for Japan to also purchase alloy metals? Or advanced machine tools? “Most favoured nation”? Yeah sure, if that means that you´re only selling scrap iron and low tech crap then sure, thats very favoured indeed.

Sorry but its a total myth that USA was a nice little choir boy taking a punch in the face by the evil empire.

Japan however, continued it’s military aggression against several countries in the region and occupied territories belonging to other counties.

Like USA, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Holland and UK had been doing there over the last few hundred years you mean?
Dont make me laugh.

Japan was certainly nastier about it sometimes but not really much difference beyond Japan fighting enemies closer to themselves in equipment and organisation.

The US had intercepted and decrypted Japanese messages which revealed that this step was preparatory to conducting a surprise military offensive against these areas, as well as, the Philippines. This was not only an act of war, but a violation of international law.

Thats complete rubbish actually.
First of all, intercepting another nations message saying something doesnt mean anything at all until you can actually prove that its for real, otherwise USA during the cold war started a few dozen attacks on USSR, by your standards.
Second, exactly what sort of international law are you referring to? :mrgreen:
Japan was at the time not as far as i can recall party to any agreement saying it was forbidden to start a war.
And no, membership in the League of Nations doesnt mean that either.

The Roosevelt administration had, in 1940, embargoed certain items which were considered war materials because Japan was using these materials to pursue aggressive war against other nations. In July, 1941, Roosevelt, in response to Japan’s occupation of southern Indochina, froze Japanese assets in the US; Britain and the Netherlands followed suit.

Yeah, changing a policy of “we will sell you 1/10 of what you need at twice the normal price markup” into not selling at all.
AND not to forget, “freezing” bank accounts. Effectively taking the money to pay for USAs military buildup funny enough.

Accusations of “economic warfare” against Japan since 1934 are nonsense and ignore the salient facts of the matter.

Maybe you should have read the source material i provided before you make a fool of yourself?
Coercing nations and companies not to trade with Japan, not selling them machine tools, not selling them alloy metals etc etc…
Oh yes, if thats pointed against USA, USA would certainly call it economic warfare.

Japan has never acknowledged it’s responsibility for the Pacific war and the millions of people it murdered in it’s campaign of national aggrandizement.

Thats strange, i could swear i´ve heard words to that effect from at least 3 different Japanese prime ministers… Oh wait, “responsibility”? Right…

Until it does, there is no point in looking to the future or pretending that such events did not take place. It is a crime, on top of their original crimes, to let two generations pass without such an acknowledgment. It is up to the present generation of Japanese to rectify this situation as they are the only ones who can do so; they are the ones who will continue to suffer the approbation of the rest of the world if they neglect this duty.

So, when will USA aknowledge its genocide against the american natives?
Or its terrorist acitivities in Central America? Propping up brutal dictators in central and south America, middle east and Africa…
How about the Hawaii coup? Starting aggressive wars with Spain and Mexico?

Yeah, because you´ve got nothing to do with those do you?
Oh right, according to YOU, you´re responsible for it.
According to me, you pretty much dont.

These matters have nothing whatsoever to do with WW II or the Japanese responsibility for the war.

Your statements makes them relevant. But of course, its so much easier to stick with one standard for YOU and another standard for everyone else.

There is some truth in this statement, however, the Japanese themselves saw fit to establish an alliance with Nazi Germany which for better or worse, caused Germany and Italy to declare war on the US and forever linked the European and Pacific wars in the minds of Americans.

What someone believe doesnt change the truth.

Which Japanese general might that be? Is there some reason you can’t be more specific and name him?

Yeah i can probably find the name again but certainly not tonight, i should already be asleep hours ago.
After a short little recap reading, no it wasnt Yamashita i meant, although his trial was totally ridiculous as well. Kangaroo courts, oh how we love thee?
I dont recall the name but i dont think the one i meant got executed, just jailed.

While it is true that some Japanese escaped justice due to “plea bargains” with US authorities, the majority were punished in accordance with international law.

Again, please do specify what “international law” you´re referring to.
Also, what i referred to was not “plea bargains”, at least not in any practical sense. Its a matter of how some high officers involved in chemical and biological warfare in China got swooped off to “debriefing rooms” and labs in USA instead of getting slammed for their crimes. And these people were the really nasty ones. Instead, kangaroo courts judge a bunch of officers that was anything from not guilty at all, to totally guilty but did so with near zero adherence to actual law. And you claimed there were no sentences at all…

Again, if you wish to have your points taken seriously, please name those Japanese with “spotless records” who were tried and “convicted of make believe” crimes, or who were convicted of crimes with which they had nothing to do.

Im not sure if there was anyone with “spotless record”, and its not very nice of you of coming up with strawmen like that.
But unless i misrecall completely there was at least a few that had done nothing that the majority of allied generals had not also, who were sentenced for whatever the court wanted that day.

#67

Oh poor poor you… Go march with your strawman army if you cant at least come up with something relevant or real to be snide about.

#68

me?

Go march with your strawman army if you cant at least come up with something relevant or real to be snide about.

Are you comparing me with Falstaff? ****ing great of you! Only, what isn’t relevant about China?

So, basically you’re on record as saying the Chinese people are shit and deserve to be serfs to the Imperial Japanese throne?

#69

So in your opinion a country is required to continue trading with an aggressor nation even though those materials are being used to prosecute a war of aggression against a third nation, and that activity is contrary to the exporting nation’s vital interests, otherwise it constitutes economic warfare? That’s an interesting position, can you cite any international law which supports such a concept?

Could you cite some authority? I’ve read the Japanese were just not very good with aluminum alloys. Besides the Zero was designed in 1938, and first flew in April, 1939, long before Japan got itself embargoed for being the big bully on the block.

I tried but couldn’t get to work for me. You should be able to post working links now.

I really don’t know what price the NEI was charging Japan for the oil it sold them, I think it was the regular market price, otherwise, until May, 1940, Japan could have gone elsewhere (as in Mexico or the mid-east) to buy their oil. Maybe you could cite some authority that references the price? And the NEI’s relationship with Japan was normal from 1934 until 1940 unless you have some information that I’m not aware of. Japan had no one but itself for signing the Tripartite Pact which essentially made them allies of Germany which was occupying Holland. No wonder the NEI wouldn’t sell to them after May, 1940.

Well, you’ve posted information that conflicts with every history book I’ve ever read, so please cite your authorities for it.

If Japan didn’t like the prices it was getting from the US, why didn’t they find another seller, or was the US supposed to donate the materials to Japan?

My understanding is Japan bought machine tools from the US, as well as Germany, and Britain up until the time their assets were frozen. And they were buying alloys from Southeast Asia, just as the US was. See “D-Days In The Pacific” by Donald L. Miller, page 6.

No one is claiming the US was a “choir boy”, but neither was Japan, and there is nothing in international law, nor any treaty, nor even any ethical stance that requires one country to continue trading in war materials with an aggressor nation that is using those materials to subjugate a third country.

The difference was that the US was trying to abolish empires and imperialism, especially the kind that stemmed from atrocities like Nanking. You are aware that in 1935, the US guaranteed it’s only major colony complete independence in ten years?

No, it’s not rubbish, it’s an historical fact.

And no you don’t need to prove that a countries intercepted messages are “real” in order to believe that they are planning an aggressive war. Japan’s track record in that regard was enough. The international law I’m referring to was conducting aggressive war and commencing hostilities without a declaration of war. You must be ignorant of the fact that Japan was a signatory to the Kellog-Briand Pact which outlawed aggressive war. You really do need to tame your prejudices and do some research into historical fact.

Well, more ignorance. The US was not gouging Japan on it’s prices nor refusing to sell to Japan what it could. The trade treaty expired in 1940, and the US was no longer ethically, morally, or legally required to trade with Japan at all. And the freezing of assets when another country acts in a hostile manner is pretty standard. Nor did the US seize Japan’s assets until it was attacked on December 7, 1941. Frozen assets are just that; frozen until some action is taken that leads to them being unfrozen, or in this case a war starts that leads to seizure. Jsapan seized all US assets in Japan even though they actually started the war.

I doubt reading your source would have made any difference. Economic warfare does not include refusing to trade with a country that is acting in a manner inimical to a country’s vital interests; it’s just plain common sense. The US did not use force to coerce any other countries to refuse to trade with Japan. Japan voluntarily aligned itself with the Axis and suffered the economic consequences of that act.

Could you possibly name them and maybe reference their specific words and when they uttered them?

In this case perception is the reality.

Well, I can’t address the issue unless I know just what you are talking about. For all I know, it might be another case of disinformation or ignorance of the real facts.

Conducting a war of aggression, mistreatment of POW’s, murder, commencing hostilities without a declaration of war, and many, many other charges.

Well, it’s easy to make wild accusations of such things, but unless you can give specific examples of trials of innocent people, they mean nothing.

And no, it’s not “coming up with a strawman”, it’s just holding you to the very reasonable standards of the forum. Any time someone asserts that something happened they can expect to be asked for specific examples with references cited. Otherwise, all we would get is wild-eyed assertions of facts which couldn’t be proven or disproven.

#70

Japan had been conducting ruthless military warfare and civilian atrocities against
China during the same period, which was the cause of Western pressure against Japan to try to stop that war.

Focusing selectively on the West’s alleged economic warfare while ignoring Japan’s war against China is similar to the modern blinkered Japanese ‘we were the innocent victim’ and ‘our enemies forced us into war’ rubbish which surrounds much of Japan’s conception of its experiences from the start of its war against China to the end of its war against just about everyone else in its region and well beyond its region.

And the casus belli for Japan’s war against China was … ?

Even if that’s true, how does it alter Japan’s conduct in WWII and Japan’s refusal to confront and admit that conduct?

So there is an implicit admission that the past is dishonourable, but a refusal to admit it in preference for looking to a better future. Which still constitutes a refusal to deal squarely with the past.

Concealment is as much a falsification as is a lie. Both obscure the truth.

Only to the extent that they don’t know their own history and don’t understand the real reasons for what happened to Japan when it lost WWII, courtesy of an education system which for decades contrived to conceal their war history from them.

I didn’t say anything about generational guilt, not least because I think it’s a silly notion.

My concern is with Japan refusing for several generations to admit fully and frankly its guilt in and related to WWII, as Germany did.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to something like Yamashita’s response to the Alexandra Hospital massacre?

Most of the major war criminals who should have been prosecuted in Japan avoided punishment because it suited the Americans, and to a lesser extent the British (but not the Australians who continued prosecutions outside Japan) to drop prosecutions in the late 1940s to bolster Japanese support for America’s confrontation with the communist powers.

Unlike the Germans, the Japanese had little of scientific or military value to the West, although a few bastards from Harbin were thought to have learned something from their atrocities and were not prosecuted but it turned out they had nothing of value. Although some of them went on to bigger and better things, including one who ran a major Japanese pharmaceutical company post-war.

Could you give me fifteen instances of completely innocent Japanese, being five from each of A Class, B Class and C Class, who were convicted of make-believe crimes or crimes they had nothing to do with?

The humour escapes me.

Or is it sad irony, such as the defendants being accorded rights, procedures, principles, and representation denied to the millions whose deaths they ordered and or caused?

So who were the innocent defendants who were unjustly prosecuted and convicted as scapegoats?

I agree generally with the points Wizard has made in response to your posts.

#71

This is a formal comment from a moderator who hopes it won’t be necessary to issue a formal warning if you ignore the comment.

Robust debate is welcome here, but remarks like the one above don’t contribute to the debate.

Nick’s pithy comment about China is highly relevant to the discussion. The countless Chinese deaths at Japanese hands were real.

Try responding to it with an argument about why Japan’s conduct in China is irrelevant to the points you have made, rather than making a gratuitous comment about it being snide.

#72

Who would’ve thunk you’d read Henry IV? Let alone understood it. :wink: :smiley:

(P.S. I didn’t.)

#73

What? He’s a character from Henry the IVth? I didn’t! I was talking about the now defunct beer! :smiley:

Actually, I’ve read much Elizabethan propaganda (depending on how it’s performed, it can also be subtly undermining) written by Bill!

#74

  1. Please make the effort to identify the person you rely upon as an example of gross injustice. Otherwise your claim goes nowhere.

  2. Yamashita’s trial was not ridiculous, no matter how much one might question the concept of command responsibility. He, unlike the effective military dictatorship he worked for, got the full benefit of a democratic legal system which provided him with counsel who argued his case outside the military tribunal system, which is a ****ing sight more than was given by Japan to the millions of poor bastards who were exploited, enslaved, tortured, murdered and massacred by Yamashita’s employers. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=327&invol=1

  3. The Nuremberg and IMTFE tribunals were everything that the people they tried didn’t have under their own systems, including advocates who did their best to represent the defendants in ways unknown in the dictatorships from which those defendants came.

  4. Yamashita’s case going before the US Surpreme Court demonstrates the quality and determination of his American lawyers to represent their client and to exhaust his legal remedies.

  5. That fine tradition was exemplified in recent years by Major Mori, who did a fair job of destroying his own military career by doing everything he could to represent his client David Hicks. Wiki ain’t my favourite source, but this is an accurate and very, very brief summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mori

What would you prefer?

Some corrputed-Bushido-imbued ****wit with a cheap sword dispensing justice, or just random murder for the fun of it and to run up a tally, to Chinese civilians in a contest to see who could could kill the most Chinese? http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

Or a system where an accused war criminal could have his case argued in the US Supreme Court, even though that wasn’t part of the war crimes tribunal system?

Give me one example of anything approximating a trial by the Japanese before, for example, the Sook Ching massacres. Or Bangka Island. Or countless other pieces of ruthless brutality by mindless primitives motivated by, at best, racist hostility or, at best, … yes, well, at best, what would explain such things?

#75

This makes sense.

Beer is something I always associate with you.

And, alas, defunct. :wink: :smiley:

#76

Those equivocal and often self-pitying ‘apologies’ rank with Hirohito’s equally evasive refusal to face facts, and to avoid loss of face, with his ludicrous “the war has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage” comment in his surrender speech.

Japanese apologies

Wed, 17/02/2010 - 16:59 — Gerhard Krebs

Yamazaki, Jane W. 2006. Japanese Apologies for World War II: A Rhetorical Study. London and New York: Routledge. xii, 196 pages, ISBN 0 415 35565 6

The Japanese government turns a blind eye to the country’s colonial and second world war misdeeds - so goes the oft-heard criticism that periodically creates tension throughout the Far East. Jane Yamazaki, however, challenges the view that Japan has never apologised for past crimes, and argues instead that the rest of the world has turned a deaf ear on repeated Japanese expressions of regret. In recent decades Tokyo has apologised several times in different ways ranging from merely making excuses to expressing sincere regret. The problem often lies in language, since Japanese can be difficult to translate or leave a lot of room for interpretation. Yamazaki, therefore, not only details the history of Japan’s multiple apologies; concentrating on the years between 1984 and 1995, she also analyses their rhetoric and translates different expressions.

From ‘hansei’ to ‘chinsha’: how to say ‘sorry’

Yamazaki begins her chronology of Japanese apologies with the 1965 normalisation of relations with South Korea, when Foreign Minister Shiina Etsusaburô expressed ‘true regret’ (‘makoto ni ikan’) and ‘deep remorse’ (‘fukaku hansei’) over an ‘unfortunate period in our countries’ history’. Japan later used the same term in a joint communiqué when it normalised relations with China in 1972: ‘The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself [fukaku hansei]’. ‘Hansei’ (‘remorse’, ‘reflection’) is actually a weak expression of apology. Even softer was Emperor Hirohito’s reference to Japan’s treatment of China during the second world war while visiting President Ford in 1975: ‘The peoples of both countries…endured a brief, unfortunate ordeal as storms raged in the usually quiet Pacific’. Three years later, when Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiao Ping visited Japan, Hirohito referred to the past by merely saying, ‘At one time, there were unfortunate events between our countries’.

In 1982 a controversy erupted over alleged revisions of Japanese history in school textbooks. Following what was perceived by many as Japan’s less than diplomatic handling of the situation, violent reactions occurred in China and South Korea. The rising tensions induced Japanese politicians to apologise more clearly, though they still used the rather lightweight ‘hansei’. In 1985, for example, on the United Nations’ 40th anniversary, Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro declared, ‘Since the end of the war, Japan has profoundly regretted [kibishiku hansei] the unleashing of rampant ultra nationalism and militarism and the war that brought great devastation to the people of many countries around the world and to our country as well’. While regretting past wrongs, Yasuhiro stressed that Japan had suffered, too, a tactic repeated by other politicians.

The stronger ‘owabi’ (‘apology’) was first expressed in 1990, by Prime Minister Kaifu Toshiki to South Korean President Roh, and has been used regularly since: ‘…the people of the Korean peninsula experienced unbearable grief and suffering because of actions of our country…[we/I] are humbly remorseful [hansei] on this and wish to note our frank feelings of apology [owabi]’. Simultaneously, however, Japan stubbornly denied maintaining second world war ‘comfort stations’ with forced prostitutes, most of them Korean. Cornered by Japanese historians, Cabinet Secretary Katô Kôichi publicly apologised to the ‘victims’ (‘higaisha’) in January 1992. Visiting Korea the same month, Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi even called Japan the ‘aggressor/perpetrator’ (‘kagaisha’).

Prime Minister Hosokawa Morihiro’s August 1993 apology resembled Kaifu’s in 1990, but with one addition that other politicians later reiterated several times: that Japan ‘will demonstrate a new determination by contributing more than ever before to world peace’. Hosokawa’s cabinet included three ministers of the Socialist Party, which had been calling for reconciliation with other Asian peoples and ‘sincere Japanese apologies to achieve that goal’. In Korea in November 1993, Hosokawa ‘apologised from the heart’ (‘chinsha’) for ‘Japan’s past colonial rule’, calling his country the aggressor/perpetrator (‘kagaisha’). The Japanese public approved of his mention of ‘aggression’ and ‘colonial rule’, but conservatives bristled. Having gone beyond what fellow party members and his coalition government were willing to admit, Hosokawa was at times forced to backtrack. Nevertheless, the next Prime Minister, Hata Tsutomu, uttered almost the same words in a May 1994 Diet speech.
In August 1995, as the 50th anniversary of the second world war’s end approached, the Socialist Murayama Tomiichi led a coalition government that included his long-time enemy, the conservative LDP. A known pacifist and advocate of non-alignment, neutrality and a closer relationship with Asian nations, Murayama apologised no differently than Kaifu, Miyazawa or Hosokawa had, yet the world took him much more seriously. Ironically, his stature as an apology advocate undermined his own government’s recognition of his apology: after a long debate and vociferous right wing pressure, the resulting Diet resolution was so watered down that the word ‘apology’ didn’t even appear. This reinforced the outside world’s impression that Japan had never apologised at all. Later prime ministers, all of them conservative, restated Murayama’s apology almost verbatim.

The politics of apologia: Why say sorry?

Other nations also hate to apologise for wrongdoings, the author writes, and cites as an example the long overdue American apology to Japanese-Americans for their internment during the second world war. She finds American and British apologies are typically selective and ignore broader cases such as slavery, the use of napalm in Vietnam or the British Opium War. Indeed, when France passed a law, in February 2005, requiring history education in schools and universities to emphasise the ‘positive role’ of the French colonial presence on other continents, it spurred harsh criticism by the French left and vehement protests in the countries concerned, above all in Algeria and the Antilles.

As for Japan, Yamazaki admits that its apologies are sometimes expressed only in a general way concerning warfare, aggression, war atrocities or colonial rule, but she also provides several examples of apology for specific violent events or practices, such as the Nanking massacre, biochemical warfare, sexual slavery, and mistreatment of allied soldiers and civilians. Japan’s reasons for apologising, according to Yamazaki, are several: to repair relations with Asian countries; to stimulate national self-reflection and a learning process leading to a new, improved identity; to affirm moral principles. She also cites the historian Yoshida Yutaka, who sees apologies and other conciliatory strategies as motivated by the Japanese ambition to assert leadership in Asia. But the domestic call for self-reflection is also motivated by opposition parties or new administrations who wish to criticise previous ones - most clearly demonstrated by Prime Minister Hosokawa in 1993.

Japanese left-wing groups, unlike conservatives, are vehemently antimilitaristic and see the second world war as an instance of Japanese imperialism. Advocating closer ties with China, Korea and other Asian countries, they consistently demand a more remorseful stance and compensation for victims of Japanese aggression. The different political attitudes - conservative versus left-wing - are also reflected in the choice of expressions: ‘comfort women’ versus ‘sex slaves’, ‘Nanking incident’ versus ‘Nanking massacre’, ‘China Incident’ versus ‘China War’. Yamazaki sees the conservative aversion to apology as an expression of a masochistic view of history and also of a fear that apologising would imply the Emperor’s responsibility, if not culpability. But she neglects to sufficiently address conservatives’ fear that admission of guilt would invite demands for compensation.

Continued …

#77

Appearing unrepentant

The author believes that the South Korean government was ready to accept Japan’s 1965 apology - its ‘hansei’ on the occasion of normalising relations - but that the Korean public was not. The Chinese government’s situation was similar, she says, but it later changed its attitude. Unfortunately, Yamazaki’s study ends with the year 1995, after which the Chinese repeatedly campaigned to blame Japan for its alleged lack of sensibility. Other Asian countries believe Japan shouldn’t feel guilty or apologise at all. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma and Indonesia have taken a neutral attitude, holding that Japan should concentrate on present and future problems instead of wasting time and energy on historiographical reflection. They support the position of Japanese apologists, who claim that the second world war was fought for the liberation of Asia from white domination. Taiwan’s reticence, meanwhile, probably reflects its ambivalence toward its former coloniser (1895-1945), close economic partner and ally in its campaign for recognition as the legitimate government of China, at least until Taipei lost that fight in 1972. Though the author herself admits that some Japanese apologies have been insufficient, her evidence that they have been expressed is convincing. But the period covered by Yamazaki’s study ended over ten years ago. Since that time, regardless of any apologies expressed, Prime Minister Koizumi’s numerous visits to the Yasukuni Shrine and the Ministry of Education’s approval of controversial textbooks, (in 2001 and 2005), that present a ‘new view’ of national history, have renewed a perception of Japan as unrepentant. Still, Yamazaki’s book is a valuable response to the question of how Japan has dealt with its own history and of how the world has, or has not, responded.

Gerhard Krebs Berlin Free University Krebs-Takeda@t-online.de
http://www.newasiabooks.org/review/japanese-apologies-0

#78

So, when will USA aknowledge its genocide against the american natives?

Possibly around the same time that Japan acknowledges its oppression of the Burakumin and Ainu.

But you’re not comparing apples with apples. The issue here is primarily to do with education and knowledge of a country’s own misdeeds. It took a long time for America’s mistreatment of its indigenous people to become part of popular knowledge, but books such as Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee redressed that and became part of the secondary and tertiary education syllabus from the 1970s.

Japan hasn’t done anything like that in relation to its mistreatment of various peoples in China and during WWII, although it is now about as far removed from those events as America was from the American Indian issues in the 1970s.

Meanwhile there are American politicians, and a Republican no less leading the charge, who are pursuing such an apology. http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=312340
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.14:

Japan’s dominant party’s politicians’ response to Japan’s conduct in China and during WWII has been somewhat less apologetic. http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/Denying_truth.html

Or its terrorist acitivities in Central America? Propping up brutal dictators in central and south America, middle east and Africa…

These are not comparable, and are as irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion as is Japan’s conduct in its colony of Korea up to and during WWII.

How about the Hawaii coup?

If you want to beat the Yanks around their heads to demonstrate that they’re at least as bad as the Japanese, you need to pick your examples more carefully.

SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY.

The Congress -
(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html

Starting aggressive wars with Spain and Mexico?

How far back do you want to go?

Maybe you think America should apologise to Britain for the War of Independence?

Or that Rome should apologise to Tunis for the Romans sacking Carthage?

Oops! Rome actually did that, a couple of millennia after the event. http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198503/delenda.est.carthago.htm

Japan looks on track to take about as long.

#79

If you are refering to the popular literature then the recognition goes much further back, into the 19th Century. There was a minority but public view or opinion that the genocide of the native nations was occuring and wrong. It went paralle to well intentioned but usually ineffective efforts to relieve the decline of the native people and prevent further genocide. This went along with the attitudes towards the African american slaves & former slaves. While one segment of the population advocated & practiced terror control (lynchings) another segment opposed it.

Back in the 1970s I remember the leftists amoung the Baby Boomer generation accquired a conceit that social or moral virtue started with them & US history was devoid of any individual or group morality & justice before they came on the scene.

#80

Thanks for that.

My knowledge pretty much started with the 1970s popular publications and discussion.

Same thing here with the history of our indigenous people, about which I’m much better informed.

The 1970s onwards outrage here was generally based in the belief that great wrongs had been uncovered, which they certainly had as far as exposing them to the general public was concerned, but often on implicit and wholly incorrect assumptions, and notably that everyone in previous generations had been a racist exterminator with contempt for the Aborigines and their culture or simply didn’t care.