there poteinaly looking like preparing a new nuclear test.
Spoiler:
'We can't just wait until we're destroyed': Japan calls for the right to carry out pre-emptive strikes for the first time since World War II as it seeks to defend itself from North Korea
Politicians in Japan have argued for the technically pacifist country to have the ability to strike North Korea rather than relying on the US for its defence
North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests and a series of missile launches
But any change could come about following discussions with the US
By Thomas Burrows for MailOnline
PUBLISHED: 15:49, 28 March 2017 | UPDATED: 16:11, 28 March 2017
e-mail
27
shares
65
View comments
Japan has called for the right to carry out pre-emptive strikes for the first time since World War Two in the wake of North Korean aggression.
Politicians in Japan have argued for the technically pacifist country to have the ability to strike North Korea rather than relying on the US for its defence.
The reclusive state has conducted five nuclear tests and a series of missile launches in defiance of U.N. resolutions.
Discussions surrounding the law change to allow Tokyo to launch pre-emptive strikes against North Korea were supported by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (pictured with Donald Trump)
+3
Discussions surrounding the law change to allow Tokyo to launch pre-emptive strikes against North Korea were supported by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (pictured with Donald Trump)
Hiroshi Imazu, the head of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's security committee, told the Washington Post: 'Japan can't just wait until it's destroyed.
'It's legally possible for Japan to strike an enemy base that's launching a missile at us, but we don't have the equipment or the capability.'
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next
Russia and US race to develop 'swarmbot' drones that are...
Kim Jong-un threatens a 'strike without warning' against...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
He added: 'Our country is protected by other countries, but we can't do anything to protect them. This is not acceptable in the international community anymore.'
Gen Nakatani, defense minister until last year and a member of the committee, told the newspaper: 'I believe that we should consider having the capacity to strike.'
Last week Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appeared to give weight to the idea, saying he wanted to 'keep an eye' on developments.
Abe oversaw the acquisition of F-35A stealth fighter jets last year, boosting the country's air defense.
Calls for a stronger Japanese military have grown in the wake of North Korean aggression
+3
Calls for a stronger Japanese military have grown in the wake of North Korean aggression
Kim Jong-Un grins after watching new rocket engine launch
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:41
Fullscreen
Need Text
Japan's existing missile defense system could reportedly handle only three projectiles at once, according to Reuters.
Japan's pacifist history
Japan's pacifist constitution has been in place since the country's surrender at then end of World War II.
It was constructed by the Allied powers, principally the United States.
Article 9, introduced under the occupying forces after the war, states: "The Japanese people forever renounce war and the threat or use of force."
However, under Abe, Japan in 2015 passed a new law that allows its Self-Defense Forces go into battle to protect allies in so-called collective self-defence.
Critics argue that this could drag Japan into distant foreign wars even if there was no direct threat to the country or its people, with some even saying the rules violate the pacifist constitution.
Abe and his supporters have argued the rules were necessary to deal with a changing security environment marked by an increasingly assertive China and an unpredictable North Korea.
The country has reportedly planned a $1 billion improvement to its PAC-3 Patriot surface-to-air defenses.
But any change could come about following discussions with the US and with the support of a currently reluctant public.
Nakatani added: 'Japan doesn't have the capacity to launch an attack on North Korea by ourselves.
'In order for Japan to do that, it would take a lot of discussion with the U.S.'
Earlier this month, North Korea fired ballistic missiles that landed in the sea less than 200 miles off the northwestern coast of Japan.
The incident was one of the numerous military tests conducted by the despotic state, which has expanded its ballistic and nuclear missile capability in the wake of what it views as US and South Korean aggression.
Pyongyang insists that it needs nuclear weapons for self-defence against 'hostile enemies'.
South Korean and U.S. troops began the large-scale joint drills on March 1 that the North calls an invasion rehearsal.
Pyongyang insists that it needs nuclear weapons for self-defence against 'hostile enemies'
+3
Pyongyang insists that it needs nuclear weapons for self-defence against 'hostile enemies'
work block text. PS , if abit issuey, first tme i done a post like this on off topic with work block etc.
I'd fully support Japan being able to have a true military, as they aren't about to go invading people any time soon. Only, however, if they Japanese people want it though. And, IIRC, something like 60% support the peace constitution, so I don't think there will be any big change any time soon. But an armed Japan is only really a good thing for us, IMO, being their most important ally and all..
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd fully support Japan being able to have a true military, as they aren't about to go invading people any time soon.
I wouldn't. Not before movie like “City of life and death” can be shown in theater without controversy.
Controversy from whom?
From the wiki link you provided the only controversy was in China about how a Japanese soldier was portrayed in the film. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Could you clarify?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd fully support Japan being able to have a true military, as they aren't about to go invading people any time soon.
I wouldn't. Not before movie like “City of life and death” can be shown in theater without controversy.
As someone whose spent 8 years living in Japan, 4 of them working directly with the Japanese SDF, I myself find nothing to be concerned about if they were to change their military focus to be in-line with everyone else in the world.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be. My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be. My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
Sounds a whole lot like the U.S., not that the U.S. is really the best example for properly addressing sensitive international topics. Oh, people like to get themselves riled up about Pearl Harbor and D-Day on Normandy whenever they please, but people seem to act like their country isn't the only one to have ever used atomic/nuclear weapons against other humans, largely civilians.
Though time does play a factor in whether the people are responsible for "the horrors of their past". The proportion of people who are even old enough to remember WWII is rather small, a little larger in Japan because of their skewed age demographics, but surely most of its politicians and any of those who would hypothetically serve in this military would be far too young to have an 80-year-old atrocity tacked to their heads. Should we go pointing fingers at German citizens for Holocaust atrocities? Actually, treating Germany that way after WWI played a part in WWII happening, so I'd call it a bad idea. People don't deserve to have their country's shameful moments in history dangled over their heads for eternity... so cut it out.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be.
My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
Sounds a whole lot like the U.S., not that the U.S. is really the best example for properly addressing sensitive international topics. Oh, people like to get themselves riled up about Pearl Harbor and D-Day on Normandy whenever they please, but people seem to act like their country isn't the only one to have ever used atomic/nuclear weapons against other humans, largely civilians.
Though time does play a factor in whether the people are responsible for "the horrors of their past". The proportion of people who are even old enough to remember WWII is rather small, a little larger in Japan because of their skewed age demographics, but surely most of its politicians and any of those who would hypothetically serve in this military would be far too young to have an 80-year-old atrocity tacked to their heads. Should we go pointing fingers at German citizens for Holocaust atrocities? Actually, treating Germany that way after WWI played a part in WWII happening, so I'd call it a bad idea. People don't deserve to have their country's shameful moments in history dangled over their heads for eternity... so cut it out.
Also of note checking one of the films bigger production companies involved.
China state owned media and film production company.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be.
My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
There is a difference between allowing the type of militarism that some subgroups of japanese society would like to see resurrected, and allowing a country the right to defend itself when it's neighbour is clearly gearing up for a conflict.
A lot of countries that were basically monsters 70 years ago have pretty much fully reformed themselves into beacons of freedom and liberty and all that gak.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be.
My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
Sounds a whole lot like the U.S., not that the U.S. is really the best example for properly addressing sensitive international topics. Oh, people like to get themselves riled up about Pearl Harbor and D-Day on Normandy whenever they please, but people seem to act like their country isn't the only one to have ever used atomic/nuclear weapons against other humans, largely civilians.
Though time does play a factor in whether the people are responsible for "the horrors of their past". The proportion of people who are even old enough to remember WWII is rather small, a little larger in Japan because of their skewed age demographics, but surely most of its politicians and any of those who would hypothetically serve in this military would be far too young to have an 80-year-old atrocity tacked to their heads. Should we go pointing fingers at German citizens for Holocaust atrocities? Actually, treating Germany that way after WWI played a part in WWII happening, so I'd call it a bad idea. People don't deserve to have their country's shameful moments in history dangled over their heads for eternity... so cut it out.
Also of note checking one of the films bigger production companies involved.
China state owned media and film production company.
Yeah, that raised flags for me as well. I know Japan is awful about acknowledging the full extent of its crimes during the 20th Century but I don't know if I'd trust a film funded by the Chinese state to accurately portray events involving Japan during WWII.
Prime Minister Abe has been calling for this since he became Prime Minister again in 2012. A large part of the reason is that it makes rapid response and co-ordination with America in deterring China clearer, and therefore more likely to actually work.
But he's in his 5th year of lobbying for the change, and I don't think he's actually made that much progress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Yeah, that raised flags for me as well. I know Japan is awful about acknowledging the full extent of its crimes during the 20th Century but I don't know if I'd trust a film funded by the Chinese state to accurately portray events involving Japan during WWII.
I went to the monument in Nanking. It's called "The Memorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders". Yeah, they don't beat around the bush about who did what to whom. Thing is though, the Chinese aren't actually being in any way dishonest in portraying what the Japanese did. They really were straight up despicable.
I wouldn't trust the official Chinese line on just about anything, but it when it comes to them claiming Japan invented reasons to invade China, and then set about committing a long series of war crimes, the Chinese are right.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be.
My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
Sounds a whole lot like the U.S., not that the U.S. is really the best example for properly addressing sensitive international topics. Oh, people like to get themselves riled up about Pearl Harbor and D-Day on Normandy whenever they please, but people seem to act like their country isn't the only one to have ever used atomic/nuclear weapons against other humans, largely civilians.
What exactly are you getting at? Using nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about as far from a warcrime as you could get. The use of those atomic bombs actually saved more lives than were lost or maimed by the bombs themselves by causing the Japanese to surrender instead of having to perform a costly invasion, which would have led to far more loss of life on both sides.
Like it or not, it was the right thing to do at the time.
My grandfather hated the Japanese, hypothetically because of the war (where he worked in a munitions facility in the UK), but I'm pretty sure is more because he fell asleep watching "The Bridge over The River Kwai" one time too many.
My dad, I don't think ever thought too much about the Japanese up until he recently watched Unbroken and now also hates the entire country as a result.
Me, well... All of the above is essentially history, fictionalised or otherwise and bears no resemblance to my context of Japan.
KommissarKiln wrote: Should we go pointing fingers at German citizens for Holocaust atrocities?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean look at Germany, there are few nations more committed to peace. If Germany can do it, so can Japan.
That's precisely my point. Germany would have no problem showing a movie that depicts the horrors of nazism. Pretty sure they did some themselves. Japan can't say the same about the horrors of Imperial Japan (Nanking massacre, Unit 731, …)
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Yeah, that raised flags for me as well. I know Japan is awful about acknowledging the full extent of its crimes during the 20th Century but I don't know if I'd trust a film funded by the Chinese state to accurately portray events involving Japan during WWII.
Have you read the article? The director got death threats directed at him by Chinese people for “being too sympathetic in his portrayal of Japanese soldiers”. Really, if you have an actual problem with historical accuracy, or bias, in the movie, please explain it, but that was a completely baseless and unnecessary attack
The US did indeed commit atrocities, mostly slavery and Indian genocides. But movies on slavery ain't anywhere near as controversial in the US nowadays as movies about Imperial Japan war crimes are in Japan right now.
KommissarKiln wrote: Oh, people like to get themselves riled up about Pearl Harbor and D-Day on Normandy whenever they please, but people seem to act like their country isn't the only one to have ever used atomic/nuclear weapons against other humans, largely civilians.
Not sure who people are, I'm pretty sure you are not talking about my country. And Pearl Harbor was just an act of war. Most countries have plenty of acts of war in their history. That's not what I am talking about here. I'm talking about crimes against humanity and atrocities, like the aforementioned Nankin Massacre and the experimentation of Unit 731.
KommissarKiln wrote: Though time does play a factor in whether the people are responsible for "the horrors of their past".
It's not a question of being responsible for it. It's a question of acknowledging it.
KommissarKiln wrote: Actually, treating Germany that way after WWI played a part in WWII happening
Apparently you are completely oblivious of everything that made a new war between post-WWII Germany and the rest of Europe seem impossible. Let me remind you that Japan has heated territorial conflicts with basically all their neighbors. Not just Russia, China and North Korea, but with their political allies of South Korea too. Let me remind you that Germany doesn't regularly create diplomatic incident with Israel by honoring nazi war criminals. The whole reason why I don't want to see Japan get an army is because they are nothing like Germany! I wouldn't have a problem with a bigger German military..
I wonder if part of it is, considering Japans focus on honour and face, that so much of the main political group in Japan are the immediate sons and daughters of those soldiers from WW2. - As such, perhaps these attitudes will change a little soon (Or are changing?) I imagine the grandsons won't stay in politics as long (I would imagine that Minister Ado is of this generation?)
At which point, there will be a major push for the next generation for the country to even keep on functioning. - Which I'm guessing is relatively soon, maybe 5-10 years?
This is all hand wavey, ignorant (in the real definition of the word) guesswork though.
Japan does have a large population segment of "crotchety old folks" who are the people who would largely be those denying their country's warcrimes in WW2. But I don't think thats any reason for them to not have a real military again.
Japan and Germany bear next to zero resemblance to what they were in the early 20th century. Both made pretty radical transformations after WW2. They're not like Russia where the USSR's ghost occasionally possesses some of their leadership.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean look at Germany, there are few nations more committed to peace. If Germany can do it, so can Japan.
Germany does it in much the same way Japan's doing it - by having a military completely incapable of expeditionary warfare. Japan does it through its constitution, Germany does it through neglect and hilarious underfunding.
I'm all for Japan having the right too decide for themselves how they want to structure their military
Although looking at the geo-political situation at hand, I´m afraid it´s just going to boil down to them being meatshields in a potential sino-american conflict.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean look at Germany, there are few nations more committed to peace. If Germany can do it, so can Japan.
Germany does it in much the same way Japan's doing it - by having a military completely incapable of expeditionary warfare. Japan does it through its constitution, Germany does it through neglect and hilarious underfunding.
Not to derail the thread too much with Germany, but just as Japan has the pacifism in its constitution, Germany has it in its mindset for the last decades. People here, especially with the realization of Nazi war crimes and the death toll of WW2, were pretty much united in their dislike of any military adventurism and anything resembling an "aggressive" military. Originally, the Bundeswehr was solely focused on defense of German territory, not unlike Japan's SDF. It was just after 1990 and the fall of the Soviet Union that a more "global" use of the Bundeswehr was cautiously hinted at by the government, and many, many people were very much against it.
To clarify my own position, I am very much in favor of honoring our NATO agreements and increase military spending and modernize some of our equipment. Nevertheless I'm very happy that our direct neighbors are all friendly by now...
I think the most interesting thing that might happen is that Japan might start selling it's weaponry to the world at large. Especially if some sort of Pacific NATO equivalent is ever formed if China and NK start to get too much for the rest of the Asian nations.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Yeah, that raised flags for me as well. I know Japan is awful about acknowledging the full extent of its crimes during the 20th Century but I don't know if I'd trust a film funded by the Chinese state to accurately portray events involving Japan during WWII.
Have you read the article? The director got death threats directed at him by Chinese people for “being too sympathetic in his portrayal of Japanese soldiers”. Really, if you have an actual problem with historical accuracy, or bias, in the movie, please explain it, but that was a completely baseless and unnecessary attack
Yes, I read the wiki entry. The Chinese director was getting death threats by Chinese people, so Japan can't have a military? I do not follow your logic. That was the thrust of your original point, yes? If not, explain (as I asked before, since your statement is unclear).
What attack was baseless? And are you suggesting that I have a problem with historical accuracy? Honestly, I cannot tell what the feth you are posting about, that is why I asked for an explanation. Don't be an ass about this.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The Chinese director was getting death threats by Chinese people, so Japan can't have a military? I do not follow your logic.
There are two completely different points.
The first one is about how Japanese society won't accept those kind of movies. This is not mentioned on the Wikipedia article, but you can check that the movie never came out in Japan.
The second one is about your accusation that the movie present a biased view of the event because it was given permission by the Chinese government. That one accusation is baseless.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The Chinese director was getting death threats by Chinese people, so Japan can't have a military? I do not follow your logic.
There are two completely different points. The first one is about how Japanese society won't accept those kind of movies. This is not mentioned on the Wikipedia article, but you can check that the movie never came out in Japan. The second one is about your accusation that the movie present a biased view of the event because it was given permission by the Chinese government. That one accusation is baseless.
If you think the Chinese government is going to release an unbiased film about Japan you are completely and utterly socially and culturally ignorant of the relationship between the two nations.
EDIT: Given their history I also completely understand why they would be biased.
Frazzled wrote: If you think the Chinese government is going to release an unbiased film about Japan you are completely and utterly socially and culturally ignorant of the relationship between the two nations.
Can you go beyond “baseless accusation” and provide any hint of a semblance of a shadow of a doubt on the historical accuracy of the movie, or are we supposed to believe your word that it is biased without any explanation of how?
Japan and China have long history of being horrible to each other, and attempting to invade one another. Not that it excuses anything that IJA has done, but it's important to note that you shouldn't really take anything their governments say about each-other without and entire salt-mine's worth of salt (the IJA did some pretty horrific things, not sure about the IJN, but I wouldn't be surprised).
Although it should be noted that the younger generation's views of each other is significantly more positive, so that's a good thing. And I think young Japanese people are supposed to be more accepting of Japanese warcrimes, so that's good. If Japan and China can make up, then there is hope for us all yet.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The Chinese director was getting death threats by Chinese people, so Japan can't have a military? I do not follow your logic.
There are two completely different points.
The first one is about how Japanese society won't accept those kind of movies. This is not mentioned on the Wikipedia article, but you can check that the movie never came out in Japan.
The second one is about your accusation that the movie present a biased view of the event because it was given permission by the Chinese government. That one accusation is baseless.
Jeezy Chreezy, you don't even initially link to all the sources that help make your "argument" then you get inflamed when people can't follow along with your drivel. In the future support your argument properly and maybe people can follow along with what you are trying to say.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not that it excuses anything that IJA has done, but it's important to note that you shouldn't really take anything their governments say about each-other without and entire salt-mine's worth of salt
Ok. So what in City of life and death should I take with a grain of salt? Anything? Any scene in particular? Or is it just “generic” advice that you decided was totally applicable in this situation because reasons?
Frazzled wrote: If you think the Chinese government is going to release an unbiased film about Japan you are completely and utterly socially and culturally ignorant of the relationship between the two nations.
Can you go beyond “baseless accusation” and provide any hint of a semblance of a shadow of a doubt on the historical accuracy of the movie, or are we supposed to believe your word that it is biased without any explanation of how?
The movie is irrelevant. This is the Chinese government about the Japanese government. If you think its unbiased I have a bridge to sell you in Arizona.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not that it excuses anything that IJA has done, but it's important to note that you shouldn't really take anything their governments say about each-other without and entire salt-mine's worth of salt
Ok. So what in City of life and death should I take with a grain of salt? Anything? Any scene in particular? Or is it just “generic” advice that you decided was totally applicable in this situation because reasons?
Last one, the reason being we are talking about a movie funded by the Chinese government. I don't see what exactly is objectionable about the statement.
Frazzled wrote: If you think the Chinese government is going to release an unbiased film about Japan you are completely and utterly socially and culturally ignorant of the relationship between the two nations.
Can you go beyond “baseless accusation” and provide any hint of a semblance of a shadow of a doubt on the historical accuracy of the movie, or are we supposed to believe your word that it is biased without any explanation of how?
The movie is irrelevant. This is the Chinese government about the Japanese government. If you think its unbiased I have a bridge to sell you in Arizona.
The movie is irrelevant about whether or not the movie is biased.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't see what exactly is objectionable about the statement.
I do.
Extracts from Wikipedia:
“The film endured a lengthy period undergoing analysis by Chinese censors, waiting six months for script approval, and another six months for approval of the finished film.”
The idea that this movie is just a propaganda piece by the Chinese government to slander the Japaneses is 100% baseless. And the fact that you don't even bother to check your prejudice about this movie isn't a good sign…
Frazzled wrote: If you think the Chinese government is going to release an unbiased film about Japan you are completely and utterly socially and culturally ignorant of the relationship between the two nations.
Can you go beyond “baseless accusation” and provide any hint of a semblance of a shadow of a doubt on the historical accuracy of the movie, or are we supposed to believe your word that it is biased without any explanation of how?
The movie is irrelevant. This is the Chinese government about the Japanese government. If you think its unbiased I have a bridge to sell you in Arizona.
We have bridges
I know. I own them all. Would you like to buy one?
The movie is irrelevant about whether or not the movie is biased.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't see what exactly is objectionable about the statement.
I do.
Extracts from Wikipedia:
“The film endured a lengthy period undergoing analysis by Chinese censors, waiting six months for script approval, and another six months for approval of the finished film.”
The idea that this movie is just a propaganda piece by the Chinese government to slander the Japaneses is 100% baseless. And the fact that you don't even bother to check your prejudice about this movie isn't a good sign…
The fact you aren't familiar enough with their relationship is not a good sign either.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't see what exactly is objectionable about the statement.
I do.
Extracts from Wikipedia:
“The film endured a lengthy period undergoing analysis by Chinese censors, waiting six months for script approval, and another six months for approval of the finished film.”
The idea that this movie is just a propaganda piece by the Chinese government to slander the Japaneses is 100% baseless. And the fact that you don't even bother to check your prejudice about this movie isn't a good sign…
And I'm not pushing that idea, merely that it shouldn't be taken as an accurate portrayal of history, partially because it's a movie, and palatially because it's produced by the Chinese government. It's like saying I should trust RT to report on things correctly. I'm not saying it's wrong, I don't know, I haven't watched it, but I tend to get my information from historians, not movies from the Chinese government. If you were, for example, talking about an article written by a historian about the Rape of Nanjing, then I wouldn't say to doubt it. Again, the Chinese and Japanese governments hate each other, and taking information from either of them about the other is not a good idea.
Besides, you say it wasn't released in Japan, but why was that? Somehow I think that was more of an economic decision, not the Japanese government stopping them from releasing it in Japan. AFAIK, they do have free speech laws.
And somehow I don't think that doubting gak from China, a country that media, you yourself have shown, has to go through Chinese censors to approve scripts, and has been known to ignore history where politically convenient, and even try to hide it completely, is a problem.
Here's thr thing. Your bashing em on a historical movie made by a state owned company who funded it.
That state does not like Japan. The fact it follows there opinion. Obviously. It spent a year being made sure it did so.
Now the fact some hold people today for actions of grandfathers..
Blimey. Talk about laying down some guilt.
Much as I agree, shrines to war criminals, war crimes and such, all terrible. Thr people walking about in Japan today. Most of em not even born.
The mentality is 100% changed. Japan is not imperial Japan. It can be trusted to use its military forces when appropriately required.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And I'm not pushing that idea, merely that it shouldn't be taken as an accurate portrayal of history, partially because it's a movie, and palatially because it's produced by the Chinese government.
And I'm saying it's just as accurate as any historical movie, and one that is completely non-controversial among historians of the period that are not Chinese…
What would you say if Schindler's list was shown everywhere in Europe EXCEPT in Germany? Because that's basically what is happening with Japan.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And I'm not pushing that idea, merely that it shouldn't be taken as an accurate portrayal of history, partially because it's a movie, and palatially because it's produced by the Chinese government.
And I'm saying it's just as accurate as any historical movie, and one that is completely non-controversial among historians of the period that are not Chinese…
What would you say if Schindler's list was shown everywhere in Europe EXCEPT in Germany? Because that's basically what is happening with Japan.
Nothing, as long as they weren't stopped from showing it. It's the movie-makers choice after all.
Okay, you can put your head in the sand all you want. But no, it's not down to a decision of the movie-makers that has nothing to do with Japanese society and their inability to deal with their country's past.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, you can put your head in the sand all you want. But no, it's not down to a decision of the movie-makers that has nothing to do with Japanese society and their inability to deal with their country's past.
What? I literally just said it was an economic decision.
So, you don't see the problem of a society that refuse to acknowledge the crime of their past? And keep in mind that I am not talking about being responsible for, I am talking of acknowledging.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, you can put your head in the sand all you want. But no, it's not down to a decision of the movie-makers that has nothing to do with Japanese society and their inability to deal with their country's past.
What? I literally just said it was an economic decision.
There's no law on having to release a film in every nation.
And . Modern world . In movie screens does not be the only way.
Online, DVD. And others ways this could be seen in Japan.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, you don't see the problem of a society that refuse to acknowledge the crime of their past? And keep in mind that I am not talking about being responsible for, I am talking of acknowledging.
I thought they had, weren't their official apologies?
And I know denial of war-crimes is an issue in the population, but that is largely among the older population, IIRC. I also directly stated as much before. I just don't see how that cancels out the fact that Japan isn't going to go around invading anyone even if they get rid of the Peace constitution (which, again, has a 60% popularity, so is not going anywhere soon). They aren't America, Britain or France after all.
I see no problem with the Japanese maintaining an offensive-capable army.
The thing is, while the PM visits Yasukuni every year, the government has acknowledged and apologized (in a Japanese manner) for the war crimes on more than a few occasions. Of course, it's far, far, far from the extent German government has acknowledged and apologized for its war crimes.
To be honest, after having kids in the Japanese public school system, I realized they don't acknowledge history much at all- outside of the war too. My kids did not learn anything about history at all until they entered U.S. school. They don't know Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi or Tokugawa Ieyasu.
North Korea is a genuine threat. The economies of China, South Korea and Japan depend on each other too much to have a conflict on the scale of WWII.
Not that it matters, but I have relatives on all sides of the war and in 3 of the major countries involved- China, Japan and the U.S.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I thought they had, weren't their official apologies?
That wasn't about acknowledging anything, that was about placating the neighboring countries. An exercise in public relations. Japanese society never acknowledged their war crimes the way Germany did. Movies are never controversial in Germany because they portray nazis as bad
I'm not really sure I trust Japan to not try to retake the Kuril Islands or go for an attempt at repeating Tsushima. Shinzo Abe just sounds like that kind of guy from a very light wikipedia reading .
Then again, we did perform a pretty decent sized Naval Invasion to evict a moroccan fisherman from our piece of rock that had just surged from the ocean.
Okay, it was actually 12 Moroccan Marines (try to say that without laughing, the Royal Moroccan Marine Corps)
But we deployed 48 Marines (oldest Naval Infantry traditions in the world baby!), a bunch of Fighters and Helicopters, retired our ambasssador, put a freighter (probably the only one we have ) on combat alert and reinforced our enclaves.
So I'm not the best person here to critisize ridiculuous and silly military adventurism .
I mean, sure, someone tried to erase the Nanking thing from textbooks, but is anyone expectin Japan to start invading anything considering the state of their population pyramid?
And where would they expand? You can't conquer places anymore, the locals are just gonna watch some youtube tutorials on Urban Resistance and you are in there for a long time and paying to keep hold of a horrible unproductive place.
Pretty sure 70 or so years separating the japanese and their war crimes is enough. I mean yeah it's bad but the whole sins of the father don't reflect on the son sort of thing. Japan isn't what it was. They do need to admit the past however but considering china becoming a bit more dominant and NK it totally makes sense for them to mobilize more. I mean who else on our side in that area could we ask to mobilize. India perhaps? I won't lie that i'm not aware of their current contributions.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Pretty sure 70 or so years separating the japanese and their war crimes is enough.
Obviously it was not enough for them…
flamingkillamajig wrote: I mean yeah it's bad but the whole sins of the father don't reflect on the son sort of thing.
Go tell them that. Go tell them “Your fathers sinned and you are not responsible for it”. It would sure be better than “Your fathers did alright and all your evil neighbors just keep going at you for no reason.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Pretty sure 70 or so years separating the japanese and their war crimes is enough.
Obviously it was not enough for them…
flamingkillamajig wrote: I mean yeah it's bad but the whole sins of the father don't reflect on the son sort of thing.
Go tell them that. Go tell them “Your fathers sinned and you are not responsible for it”. It would sure be better than “Your fathers did alright and all your evil neighbors just keep going at you for no reason.
South Korea. Well, they already mobilize but you get the point^^.
70 years is ernough time. Just because they regain ability to mount attack as needed in national defence does not equal the return of the Imperial Japanese empire and pearl harbour 2.
At some point you have to stop beating the grankids for grampas war.
Pearl Harbour was nothing. We are talking Unit 731 2 and Nanking Massacre 2 here…
jhe90 wrote: At some point you have to stop beating the grankids for grampas war.
I am not beating them for grandpas war. They were not born at that time, they have no responsibility for it. I am beating them for denying what grandpas did during this war.
Just like I'm not blaming holocaust deniers for an holocaust that happened before they were born, I am blaming them for denying it happened.
You honestly believe that most/a significant proportion of Japanese citizens deny that atrocities were committed during WW2? Really? You're so certain Japan is secretly planning more war crimes that it's like you've gone there recently and questioned passersby whether they believe Nanjing is some government conspiracy and whether they sympathize with aggressive imperialist ideals.
Have you ever actually been there? Visited any of the many WW2 museums or memorials? I got a completely different vibe when I did. The fact of the matter is Japan isn't planning on invading Asia and half the Pacific again; it's simply not sitting idly while North Korea plans who-knows-what with all of these recent weapon tests. If there's any one nation to worry about planning invasions and war atrocities, it's North Korea.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Pretty sure 70 or so years separating the japanese and their war crimes is enough.
Obviously it was not enough for them…
flamingkillamajig wrote: I mean yeah it's bad but the whole sins of the father don't reflect on the son sort of thing.
Go tell them that. Go tell them “Your fathers sinned and you are not responsible for it”. It would sure be better than “Your fathers did alright and all your evil neighbors just keep going at you for no reason.
aldo wrote: I'm not really sure I trust Japan to not try to retake the Kuril Islands or go for an attempt at repeating Tsushima. Shinzo Abe just sounds like that kind of guy from a very light wikipedia reading .
Then again, we did perform a pretty decent sized Naval Invasion to evict a moroccan fisherman from our piece of rock that had just surged from the ocean.
Okay, it was actually 12 Moroccan Marines (try to say that without laughing, the Royal Moroccan Marine Corps)
But we deployed 48 Marines (oldest Naval Infantry traditions in the world baby!), a bunch of Fighters and Helicopters, retired our ambasssador, put a freighter (probably the only one we have ) on combat alert and reinforced our enclaves.
So I'm not the best person here to critisize ridiculuous and silly military adventurism .
I mean, sure, someone tried to erase the Nanking thing from textbooks, but is anyone expectin Japan to start invading anything considering the state of their population pyramid?
And where would they expand? You can't conquer places anymore, the locals are just gonna watch some youtube tutorials on Urban Resistance and you are in there for a long time and paying to keep hold of a horrible unproductive place.
So, really, it doesn't matter.
I'm from the US the land of Freedom, over the top portions, and ridiculous military adventurism!
Honestly, though they did attack us at Pearl Harbor for no good reason, we did unleash the United States Marine Corps, the greatest fighting force history will ever see, upon them so they've gotten more then their just dues. I'm perfectly ok with them doing whatever so long as they don't try to take other people's sovereignty away from them. In fact the libertarian in me thinks it's preposterous that other countries can dictate how Japan's military can be organized this many years after WWII.
aldo wrote: I'm not really sure I trust Japan to not try to retake the Kuril Islands or go for an attempt at repeating Tsushima. Shinzo Abe just sounds like that kind of guy from a very light wikipedia reading .
Then again, we did perform a pretty decent sized Naval Invasion to evict a moroccan fisherman from our piece of rock that had just surged from the ocean.
Okay, it was actually 12 Moroccan Marines (try to say that without laughing, the Royal Moroccan Marine Corps)
But we deployed 48 Marines (oldest Naval Infantry traditions in the world baby!), a bunch of Fighters and Helicopters, retired our ambasssador, put a freighter (probably the only one we have ) on combat alert and reinforced our enclaves.
So I'm not the best person here to critisize ridiculuous and silly military adventurism .
I mean, sure, someone tried to erase the Nanking thing from textbooks, but is anyone expectin Japan to start invading anything considering the state of their population pyramid?
And where would they expand? You can't conquer places anymore, the locals are just gonna watch some youtube tutorials on Urban Resistance and you are in there for a long time and paying to keep hold of a horrible unproductive place.
So, really, it doesn't matter.
I'm from the US the land of Freedom, over the top portions, and ridiculous military adventurism!
Honestly, though they did attack us at Pearl Harbor for no good reason, we did unleash the United States Marine Corps, the greatest fighting force history will ever see, upon them so they've gotten more then their just dues. I'm perfectly ok with them doing whatever so long as they don't try to take other people's sovereignty away from them. In fact the libertarian in me thinks it's preposterous that other countries can dictate how Japan's military can be organized this many years after WWII.
Well, we don't, them not having a military that can strike outside it's boarder is something in their constitution. Its hard to change, but they can change is, same as us. They have complete control over it these days.
aldo wrote: I'm not really sure I trust Japan to not try to retake the Kuril Islands or go for an attempt at repeating Tsushima. Shinzo Abe just sounds like that kind of guy from a very light wikipedia reading .
Then again, we did perform a pretty decent sized Naval Invasion to evict a moroccan fisherman from our piece of rock that had just surged from the ocean.
Okay, it was actually 12 Moroccan Marines (try to say that without laughing, the Royal Moroccan Marine Corps)
But we deployed 48 Marines (oldest Naval Infantry traditions in the world baby!), a bunch of Fighters and Helicopters, retired our ambasssador, put a freighter (probably the only one we have ) on combat alert and reinforced our enclaves.
So I'm not the best person here to critisize ridiculuous and silly military adventurism .
I mean, sure, someone tried to erase the Nanking thing from textbooks, but is anyone expectin Japan to start invading anything considering the state of their population pyramid?
And where would they expand? You can't conquer places anymore, the locals are just gonna watch some youtube tutorials on Urban Resistance and you are in there for a long time and paying to keep hold of a horrible unproductive place.
So, really, it doesn't matter.
I'm from the US the land of Freedom, over the top portions, and ridiculous military adventurism!
Honestly, though they did attack us at Pearl Harbor for no good reason, we did unleash the United States Marine Corps, the greatest fighting force history will ever see, upon them so they've gotten more then their just dues. I'm perfectly ok with them doing whatever so long as they don't try to take other people's sovereignty away from them. In fact the libertarian in me thinks it's preposterous that other countries can dictate how Japan's military can be organized this many years after WWII.
Well, we don't, them not having a military that can strike outside it's boarder is something in their constitution. Its hard to change, but they can change is, same as us. They have complete control over it these days.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, you don't see the problem of a society that refuse to acknowledge the crime of their past? And keep in mind that I am not talking about being responsible for, I am talking of acknowledging.
I don't see a problem with a bunch of really stinking old people denying their past. In 15 years or so they'll be dead and it will be irrelevant.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd fully support Japan being able to have a true military,
I wouldn't, not without the right for China and Korea to carry out retributive strikes on Japan in retaliation for World War 2.
It can stop when the Japanese suffer casualties equal to what they inflicted on Asian, inflated for global population growth since the 1940s.
Yes, bomb innocent people because of a war that happened 70 years ago, that's smart. I guess you also want 20M or so Germans killed after their re-armament?
KommissarKiln wrote: You honestly believe that most/a significant proportion of Japanese citizens deny that atrocities were committed during WW2? Really? You're so certain Japan is secretly planning more war crimes that it's like you've gone there recently and questioned passersby whether they believe Nanjing is some government conspiracy and whether they sympathize with aggressive imperialist ideals.
Have you ever actually been there? Visited any of the many WW2 museums or memorials? I got a completely different vibe when I did. The fact of the matter is Japan isn't planning on invading Asia and half the Pacific again; it's simply not sitting idly while North Korea plans who-knows-what with all of these recent weapon tests. If there's any one nation to worry about planning invasions and war atrocities, it's North Korea.
It matters now what you or he believe. It only matters what Asians in Asia believe.
No, all that matters in this instance is what the Japanese people want. If they want a military, they can get one. I mean unless you want to attack Japan, and get into an unwinnable war with the US.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd fully support Japan being able to have a true military,
I wouldn't, not without the right for China and Korea to carry out retributive strikes on Japan in retaliation for World War 2.
It can stop when the Japanese suffer casualties equal to what they inflicted on Asian, inflated for global population growth since the 1940s.
Ah, fighting nearly century-old genocide with a brand new genocide? BRILLIANT plan. Best idea I've heard all day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KommissarKiln wrote: You honestly believe that most/a significant proportion of Japanese citizens deny that atrocities were committed during WW2? Really? You're so certain Japan is secretly planning more war crimes that it's like you've gone there recently and questioned passersby whether they believe Nanjing is some government conspiracy and whether they sympathize with aggressive imperialist ideals.
Have you ever actually been there? Visited any of the many WW2 museums or memorials? I got a completely different vibe when I did. The fact of the matter is Japan isn't planning on invading Asia and half the Pacific again; it's simply not sitting idly while North Korea plans who-knows-what with all of these recent weapon tests. If there's any one nation to worry about planning invasions and war atrocities, it's North Korea.
It matters now what you or he believe. It only matters what Asians in Asia believe.
That's what I was referring to. I've been to Japan, and it's not too hard to get a very good sense of the overall temperament of the population. The Japanese are for the most part polite and tend to keep to themselves. It's highly unusual for strangers to strike up a conversation on a subway. Outside of business and trade, the same seems to hold for international affairs. The fact they actually want to be prepared in case N. Korea tries something is unprecedented and is a sign that they are no longer idly ignoring a potential threat. With the exception maybe a handful of old geezers stuck in the past, there aren't any Japanese trying to revive their imperialist doctrines. All of this fearmongering about "Nanjing 2.0" is utterly asinine.
JohnHwangDD wrote: IDGAF what happens with Germany, but I'm pretty sure the Jews already got their pound of flesh via the Nuremburg trails and Nazi hunting that continues to this day.
Given that Japan is asking for the right to declare war, every country in Asia needs to assess very clearly what that means, given the result from the last time that Japan had it. If they don't believe Japan can be trusted, then they should bomb the feth out of them.
And the idea that Asians should just let it go? That's not for you to decide. That's for the Chinese to decide. And the Koreans. And the Filipinos. This notion that the current Japanese should not be responsible? Well, if their parents never really made amends, because the US blocked it, then better late than never.
I think all of you Westerners should step off, because it just isn't your place to tell Asia how they should react.
I'm suggesting you don't bomb people for things done by different people 70 years ago because a country wants to be able to defend it'self from country that has repeatedly threatened to nuke them.
Edit: and, again, it's been 70 fething years. The Japan of 1939 is very different than the Japan of today. As I've said, the peace constitution has a popularity of 60%. 60% of Japanese think Japan should remain a pacifistic country. This isn't the bunch of homicidal killers you appear to be portraying them as.
JohnHwangDD wrote: IDGAF what happens with Germany, but I'm pretty sure the Jews already got their pound of flesh via the Nuremburg trails and Nazi hunting that continues to this day.
Given that Japan is asking for the right to declare war, every country in Asia needs to assess very clearly what that means, given the result from the last time that Japan had it. If they don't believe Japan can be trusted, then they should bomb the feth out of them.
And the idea that Asians should just let it go? That's not for you to decide. That's for the Chinese to decide. And the Koreans. And the Filipinos. This notion that the current Japanese should not be responsible? Well, if their parents never really made amends, because the US blocked it, then better late than never.
I think all of you Westerners should step off, because it just isn't your place to tell Asia how they should react.
Thinking it's justified to blame Japan's people today is even more stupid than it was to put Japanese Americans in internment camps. A hell of a lot more stupid. Let that sink in, considering how bad of an idea detaining people based on ethnicity was (and still is...)
And even though we keep saying it, something about 1940s population of Japan =/= today's population of Japan is not getting through to you. Hence a vast majority of today's population should not be held accountable for events that occurred long before they were born, yet most of these people still feel shame and guilt over the actions of their ancestors anyways.
Your prejudices against the Japanese is forming the core of your opinion, and that's pretty inexcusable.
Any suggestions for users to "step off" because they don't hail from a specific region of the globe will be met with a ban of a yet-to-be-decided length.
Similarly, saying the population of a nation deserve to be attacked as a result of a possible future decision that many of them don't support, in retribution for something that happened 70 years ago, isn't going to be viewed as very polite either.
To the people in this thread who aren't behaving according to the rules: argue politely like a grown up or give the OT a break. Those are your two choices. Anything else will see you having an involuntary break
Two cities nuked. Fleet sunk. Cities in ruins some to 90% plus, heavy casualties and America has managed to drive them from the outer most islands to shelling mainlaind Japan with a Battleship.
Thr fact your considering a proactive defence is totaly reasonable when you have North Korea who launch missiles that fall in the sea in your directions, test nukes and makes threats of nuclear and regular war regularly makes sense if your Japan.
Also new Kim is proving to be even less stable than his father who while not a good man, he did actually act in a calmer way than his son.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't see a problem with a bunch of really stinking old people denying their past. In 15 years or so they'll be dead and it will be irrelevant.
Sure, it's only old people .
I'm sure in 15 years all the territorial dispute from Japan will have disappeared because they will stop claiming isles they don't, as all the stinking old people will have died!
Something to maybe keep in mind - when Germany got its Bundeswehr rather shortly after WW2, mainly in response to the threat of the Soviet Union of course, its officer ranks were mainly filled with ex-Wehrmacht officers who had fought for the Reich, but also some ex-SS officers even - previous enemies of all surrounding countries and the allies! So even when Germany was very much Western- and NATO-aligned back then, it was more or less accepted that the need for at least a small military presence (because the Bundeswehr was never really meant to repel a Soviet assault on its own, of course...) was bigger than a concern about a comeback of Nazism and aggressive military adventures from Germany's side.
In the same way, with a more unstable North Korea than in earlier decades and China slowly and slowly increasing their claims on surrounding ocean territory, I can understand that it would make sense to support Japan in getting a (slightly) more powerful military, in a very similar way that Germany was supported in getting troops during the cold war. I'm aware that there might be historic reasons to mistrust Japan with this, just like there were with Germany, but realpolitik trumps this here, I'd think.
The case of West-Germany certainly springs to mind and was terrifying at the time. There was however significant effort involved by the French to try and shape a sort of EU (EU being the current form) army where the Germans would not have control over there own army. Only because all these efforts collapsed and due to U.S. pressure/assurances was the Bundeswehr set up. But then the Bundeswehr came into being in a vastly more militarized Europe, if looking at army size for even smaller countries, and also a nuclear Europe. At the same time now, Japan is nowhere near the overwhelming regional power it was during the days of WW II, when it was the only significantly powerful Asian nation. If Japan ever tries something like WW II again they should first invest in nukes so they can commit murder-suicide, because China will certainly not wait for it to happen again. So why would Japan even try?
Both Japan and Germany only prosecuted the very top of their war criminals (or high profile ones) and the rest just went back into society. Both France, the United States and the Soviet Union employed some horrible people from Japan and Germany who certainly could not claim ignorance or innocence. But for the establishment of a more regular army I don't think this should hold Japan back. As long as the United States keeps a leash on the Japanese government regional allies such as South Korea really don't have anything to worry about. China of course complains because its Japan, they have a history together but Japan is also a direct regional opponent with a superpower ally. China would be happiest if Japan's army was one guy with a bat in a Toyota.
Now I do agree with Hybrid on the fact that the Japanese government has been very reluctant to recognize its history and the acts of the state during WW II. Things like the wide spread use of sex slaves is still not accepted and many in Japanese society still maintain all these sex slaves did their 'job' willingly. Professors in Japan receive death threats if they discuss these sorts of topics. In some cases Japan has paid a bit of compensation to survivors and a half meant apology then the Japanese government gets offended for talking about it, for example when they put up a statue across from the Japanese embassy in South Korea. Imagine the outrage if Germany would recall its ambassador out of protest because someone erected a holocaust memorial across from the embassy. Or the Dutch example, where the Emperor only expressed sadness (not regret) for Japan putting Dutch women and children into camps, executing men and PoW's. This is why many Asian countries still feel resentment towards Japan, as they are basically being asked to move on and not pretend all these horrible things happened and the Japanese governments have been fine with that. Its only a matter of time before those directly victimized have all moved on from this world.
Witzkatz wrote: Something to maybe keep in mind - when Germany got its Bundeswehr rather shortly after WW2, mainly in response to the threat of the Soviet Union of course, its officer ranks were mainly filled with ex-Wehrmacht officers who had fought for the Reich, but also some ex-SS officers even - previous enemies of all surrounding countries and the allies! So even when Germany was very much Western- and NATO-aligned back then, it was more or less accepted that the need for at least a small military presence (because the Bundeswehr was never really meant to repel a Soviet assault on its own, of course...) was bigger than a concern about a comeback of Nazism and aggressive military adventures from Germany's side.
In the same way, with a more unstable North Korea than in earlier decades and China slowly and slowly increasing their claims on surrounding ocean territory, I can understand that it would make sense to support Japan in getting a (slightly) more powerful military, in a very similar way that Germany was supported in getting troops during the cold war. I'm aware that there might be historic reasons to mistrust Japan with this, just like there were with Germany, but realpolitik trumps this here, I'd think.
True it was reorganized by a German General too.
He first served German Empire in WW1, then during the middle, Nazi party and then was a senior adviser to the formation of the new Army.
he served under 3 different flags.
and yes right now the NK threat is proving very real, and at this point Japan is needed to be a stronger bastian against them. US cannot solely be the one acting the counter force with SK.
jhe90 wrote: and yes right now the NK threat is proving very real, and at this point Japan is needed to be a stronger bastian against them. US cannot solely be the one acting the counter force with SK.
If the US is acting with ROK, they are not sole.
What are the Japanese going to do exactly?
I'm the first to claim very little to non existent understanding of the situation in Asia in regards to the aftermath of WWII, but criticising Japan for wanting to increasing its army and scope of said army in response to North Korea's very public shows of using ballistic missiles "because they were really bad during WWII and maybe, perhaps they might go bad again" seems a bit over the top?
jhe90 wrote: and yes right now the NK threat is proving very real, and at this point Japan is needed to be a stronger bastian against them. US cannot solely be the one acting the counter force with SK.
If the US is acting with ROK, they are not sole.
What are the Japanese going to do exactly?
Given there so close to NK in heavy missile ranges, mantain a decent missile defence and ability to agressively defend against submarine, or lighter attack craft of they get stupid.
In general form part of a firm plan to protect countries near NK if they pull a idiot move.
feeder wrote: I'm fairly comfortable in saying global nuclear exchange will not happen as that is the one thing the 1% cannot buy their way out of.
North Korea has been getting increasingly hostile and more unstable lately. I'm not ruling out that they would eventually use a nuclear missile. Or worse provide nukes to a terrorist group who loses nothing by using a nuclear weapon.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd fully support Japan being able to have a true military, as they aren't about to go invading people any time soon.
I wouldn't. Not before movie like “City of life and death” can be shown in theater without controversy.
Maybe they wouldn't invade any time soon but a lot can change in say 10 years. Japan was annihilating China since the 1930s and it wasn't until 1941 they decided to "pre-emptive strike" Pearl Harbor.
Wikipedia & read about the "Rape of Nanking" where the Japanese killed hundred of thousands women and children without remorse, and especially the massacres in Manilla where the Japanese killed a million Phillipinos. The Japanese are far from bloodless hands.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd fully support Japan being able to have a true military, as they aren't about to go invading people any time soon.
I wouldn't. Not before movie like “City of life and death” can be shown in theater without controversy.
Maybe they wouldn't invade any time soon but a lot can change in say 10 years. Japan was annihilating China since the 1930s and it wasn't until 1941 they decided to "pre-emptive strike" Pearl Harbor.
Wikipedia & read about the "Rape of Nanking" where the Japanese killed hundred of thousands women and children without remorse, and especially the massacres in Manilla where the Japanese killed a million Phillipinos. The Japanese are far from bloodless hands.
And everybody who participated in those acts is dead. Heck, most of the people who were alive at that time are dead, or will be in the next decade.
We already had a war over all this. Its history.
Or do you think the british descendants of the Normans should pay compensation to all the descendants of the Britons they conquered and mercilessly lorded over 1000 years ago? Should the Scandinavians be paying compensation to all the descendants of all those viking raids?
feeder wrote: I'm fairly comfortable in saying global nuclear exchange will not happen as that is the one thing the 1% cannot buy their way out of.
North Korea has been getting increasingly hostile and more unstable lately. I'm not ruling out that they would eventually use a nuclear missile. Or worse provide nukes to a terrorist group who loses nothing by using a nuclear weapon.
Perhaps, but the Kims are NK's 1%. Maybe if they were about to be deposed, they could choose to go out with a bang.
Terror nukes are of course a terrible thing but not the same as an East vs West global feth you, which is what I'm talking about.
Well the thing is, if terrorists get their hands on and use a nuke, whoever that nuke originally came from, assuming it was deliberately given, would bear the brunt of retaliation.
North Korea gives a nuke to some terrorists who use it, North Korea is going to feel retaliation.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the thing is, if terrorists get their hands on and use a nuke, whoever that nuke originally came from, assuming it was deliberately given, would bear the brunt of retaliation.
North Korea gives a nuke to some terrorists who use it, North Korea is going to feel retaliation.
That concept is why no nation seems to have every given proxy forces them.
Nukes operate under different rules as regular ordinance for very obvious reasons.
And yes as if you do it once, you could do it again and no ones gonna give you a second chance handing terrorists nuclear weapons.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the thing is, if terrorists get their hands on and use a nuke, whoever that nuke originally came from, assuming it was deliberately given, would bear the brunt of retaliation.
North Korea gives a nuke to some terrorists who use it, North Korea is going to feel retaliation.
If that is the case, I sincerely hope the US drones a hellfire on the Kims, not a Shock and Awe the general populace. Those poor bastards have suffered enough.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the thing is, if terrorists get their hands on and use a nuke, whoever that nuke originally came from, assuming it was deliberately given, would bear the brunt of retaliation.
North Korea gives a nuke to some terrorists who use it, North Korea is going to feel retaliation.
If that is the case, I sincerely hope the US drones a hellfire on the Kims, not a Shock and Awe the general populace. Those poor bastards have suffered enough.
A B2 wing with bunker busters probblt needed. Kims are paranoid. His palace likely a fortress or has a a big luxury bunker because 1% of NK. Well 0.0001 %
And anyone inside utterly loyal.
jhe90 wrote: Given there so close to NK in heavy missile ranges, mantain a decent missile defence and ability to agressively defend against submarine, or lighter attack craft of they get stupid.
You would expect DPROK to just ignore ROK and go straight for Japan? Why?
jhe90 wrote: Given there so close to NK in heavy missile ranges, mantain a decent missile defence and ability to agressively defend against submarine, or lighter attack craft of they get stupid.
You would expect DPROK to just ignore ROK and go straight for Japan? Why?
Is it history if people refuse to put it in their history books and history courses, though?
North Korea has carried out belligerent and underhanded acts probably against numerous countries in Asia. Don't believe me? Do some research on their kidnapping Japanese citizens in the 70s and 80s, Megumi Yokota is a particularly prominent story.
jhe90 wrote: Given there so close to NK in heavy missile ranges, mantain a decent missile defence and ability to agressively defend against submarine, or lighter attack craft of they get stupid.
You would expect DPROK to just ignore ROK and go straight for Japan? Why?
Is it history if people refuse to put it in their history books and history courses, though?
North Korea has carried out belligerent and underhanded acts probably against numerous countries in Asia. Don't believe me? Do some research on their kidnapping Japanese citizens in the 70s and 80s, Megumi Yokota is a particularly prominent story.
No id expect them to go for Japan, SK, and anyone they wanna lash out at same time.
Just as a thought experiment for everyone, just look at how absolutely bonkers this thread is. Then consider its being debated by people who have no legacy to Japan's actions 70 years ago. That might help understand how intense the issue gets within Japan itself.
sebster wrote: Just as a thought experiment for everyone, just look at how absolutely bonkers this thread is. Then consider its being debated by people who have no legacy to Japan's actions 70 years ago. That might help understand how intense the issue gets within Japan itself.
Very true. However real situation and modern dynamic may force that they have to be prepared at least to be more defensively active. They do not have to use that capability but at least be ready to exacute that action should it be required to protect Japan and her citizens.
Hopefully not but one day they may be forced to deploy there soldiers in combat.
jhe90 wrote: No id expect them to go for Japan, SK, and anyone they wanna lash out at same time.
Then I'm sure if pre-emptive strikes are an option, South Korea will do those. It's not like the RPROK's bases that would target Japan will have a “This base is only targeting Japan so please don't bomb us” on them…
I find it interesting that people think that a nation-state's powers should be circumscribed because they believe the people who live there don't spend enough time in the day thinking about what other people related to them eighty years prior did.
Ketara wrote: I find it interesting that people think that a nation-state's powers should be circumscribed because they believe the people who live there don't spend enough time in the day thinking about what other people related to them eighty years prior did.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, you don't see the problem of a society that refuse to acknowledge the crime of their past? And keep in mind that I am not talking about being responsible for, I am talking of acknowledging.
Here, for example. 'Acknowledging' very clearly means 'thinking about it'. It would be very difficult to acknowledge something without considering it. Given that the gentleman in question is chipping in on a thread about a nation-state's powers, it is not unreasonable to assume the two are linked in his mind.
Ketara wrote: Here, for example. 'Acknowledging' very clearly means 'thinking about it'.
Suuuuuure.
Gotta love how you switch from “nation-state” to “individual responsibility” too! Because I'm pretty sure it was the same nation state, i.e. Japan.
So would you say that the current German government is the same as when it was controlled by the Nazi party? Or that the Russian Government is the same as the USSR?
Hey look, Japan just doesn't have enough time to think about comfort women, which is an old and irrelevant issue.
That's why Japan officially complains about a statue of a comfort woman in Seoul! Because they just don't have time to think about the issue! One would believe that just leaving the statue be would take less time than to file an official complain about it, but hey, remember, WWII happened to long time ago so reasons reasons something something.
Oh wait, they don't have enough time so they will complain about another statue, in California this time! Really, they must be very busy because they have absolutely no free time, complaining about all those statues doesn't leave them any time to think about what they represent, which is old and they totally don't care about it.
lul.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: So would you say that the current German government is the same as when it was controlled by the Nazi party?
Uh, no? Government and nation-states are not synonyms, you know. It's basic stuff.
Ketara wrote: Here, for example. 'Acknowledging' very clearly means 'thinking about it'.
Suuuuuure.
Gotta love how you switch from “nation-state” to “individual responsibility” too! Because I'm pretty sure it was the same nation state, i.e. Japan.
Either you are talking purely about the government, or you are talking about the people which comprise the entire nation-state. Whichever one it is though, your issue is the same and the distinction quite irrelevant.
You do not think that 'they' spend enough time considering (or 'acknowledging') the actions of people who lived eighty years beforehand, and given that you raised that in a thread upon the powers of a nation state, you would appear to believe that this should have some impact or relevance upon those powers. These are your words you're arguing with here, not mine. I've already given the quote.
All I did was point out that I found such a stance interesting.
Ketara wrote: You do not think that 'they' spend enough time considering (or 'acknowledging') the actions of people who lived eighty years beforehand[…]These are your words you're arguing with here, not mine.
Alternate facts .
Those are your words. I've actually ridiculed the idea that this was about “spending time” in my previous message, just above yours. The amount of time spent is definitely not the problem.
Ketara wrote: You do not think that 'they' spend enough time considering (or 'acknowledging') the actions of people who lived eighty years beforehand[…]These are your words you're arguing with here, not mine.
Alternate facts .
Those are your words. I've actually ridiculed the idea that this was about “spending time” in my previous message, just above yours. The amount of time spent is definitely not the problem.
So clarify for me instead of being offensive and 'ridiculing'. Y'know, like a normal reasonable person does in a pleasant conversation, as opposed to a faceless troll on the web.
Are you referring to the people or the government? And by 'acknowledging' what do you mean? Nail it down for me.
Ketara wrote: Are you referring to the people or the government?
Japanese society? You know, people as a group rather than just as individual. That idea which is the basis of the concept of nation-state that you used earlier.
Ketara wrote: And by 'acknowledging' what do you mean?
Basically, stop trying to pretend it didn't happen, stop trying to make excuses, stop making the subject taboo, etc.
Japanese society? You know, people as a group rather than just as individual. That idea which is the basis of the concept of nation-state that you used earlier.
Basically, stop trying to pretend it didn't happen, stop trying to make excuses, stop making the subject taboo, etc.
So what evidence do you have that the subject is currently taboo or that they pretend it didn't happen as of the moment?
I know you linked to a film you said didn't get shown there, but if you're going to make a statement about an entire society, you need a spot more than that. I am open to being convinced, but for claims that broad and far-ranging, you should be able to point to multiple Japanese histories ignoring it, specific general educational curriculum which goes out of its way to ignore it, monuments being defaced, museums which should have exhibits on it but do not, etcetc.I'd also appreciate any sociological/anthropological studies and suchlike on the phenomena, and (if you have any) personal empirical tales and anecdotes from your time there demonstrating it. All that sort of jazz.
Once we've sifted all that (assuming your hypothesis holds true), we can move on to why this one specific anthropological blind spot should have an influence on a matter of contemporary defence policy.
Honestly, though they did attack us at Pearl Harbor for no good reason, we did unleash the United States Marine Corps, the greatest fighting force history will ever see, upon them so they've gotten more then their just dues. I'm perfectly ok with them doing whatever so long as they don't try to take other people's sovereignty away from them. In fact the libertarian in me thinks it's preposterous that other countries can dictate how Japan's military can be organized this many years after WWII.
Actually Japan had some very good reasons for attacking pearl harbor. I know history is lacking in the US, but a lot of stuff happened leading up to pearl harbor. In a lot of ways the US provoked Japan into that course of action. The tensions really started building between our the US & japan since 1931, there's 10 years of buildup that's just never covered.
Numerous embargoes, denial of the panama canal, trade restrictions, terminating treaties, freezing japans assets etc.
They didn't just wake up on dec 6th, and go, "you know what would be fun, attacking pearl harbor"
Automatically Appended Next Post: I can see why japan wants that right, I'm sure they're tired of NK lobbing missiles over their country.
If granted this right though, is that just them asking permission to invade NK? and how will china react to that, not very positively I'd imagine. Those 3 have some deep hatred towards each other.
Japan could unleash a huge missile barrage against NK without ever having their ships leave port. Then if NK retaliates and actually hits japan with a missle, the US shares Naval bases with japan and that would leave trump having to decide what to do. And I don't think anyone wants to know the answer to that.
Ketara wrote: So what evidence do you have that the subject is currently taboo or that they pretend it didn't happen as of the moment?
Beside the one I already linked to, you mean? You completely ignored the two incidents about statues that I mentioned just above. I am not sure giving you more examples would be useful if you just ignore them…
Ketara wrote: So what evidence do you have that the subject is currently taboo or that they pretend it didn't happen as of the moment?
Beside the one I already linked to, you mean?
You completely ignored the two incidents about statues that I mentioned just above. I am not sure giving you more examples would be useful if you just ignore them…
I saw them. They're hardly sufficient evidence for such a broad sociological assertion. That's a bit like me linking to an article about a drunk crown prince from Saudia Arabia foreigner urinating on war memorial and trying to use that to justify an assertion about all foreigners being disrespectful.
I'm treating your (frankly) broad claim about Japanese society with civility and respect. I'm simply asking for sufficient basic proof to validate it. Doesn't even necessarily have to be academic. I gave a list of the sort of evidence that would be required in order to sustain a logical, evidence based belief in your statement. I'm assuming that in order to hold that belief about an entire completely foreign culture, you must have it. So I'm asking that you provide it. Then I can look at it, critically analyse it, and assuming it is of good quality and corroborates, endorse it, and go on my merry way. You, in exchange, get to know that you enlightened one person in the world.
Ketara wrote: That's a bit like me linking to an article about a drunk crown prince from Saudia Arabia foreigner urinating on war memorial and trying to use that to justify an assertion about all foreigners being disrespectful.
How in the world is that equivalent to “Japanese officials have formally asked the South Korean government to remove a statue erected by activists in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul”? There are so many different problem with that comparison that I don't even know where to start. Maybe with “A formal demand is completely different from a drunk act of vandalism”, or with “Japanese officials represent Japan in a way that “a drunk crown prince from Saudi Arabia” doesn't do for “all foreigners”.
Ketara wrote: That's a bit like me linking to an article about a drunk crown prince from Saudia Arabia foreigner urinating on war memorial and trying to use that to justify an assertion about all foreigners being disrespectful.
How in the world is that equivalent to “Japanese officials have formally asked the South Korean government to remove a statue erected by activists in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul”? There are so many different problem with that comparison that I don't even know where to start. Maybe with “A formal demand is completely different from a drunk act of vandalism”, or with “Japanese officials represent Japan in a way that “a drunk crown prince from Saudi Arabia” doesn't do for “all foreigners”.
Ok ok...
The thing is the argument over 80 year old crimes is miles over taken by a very real modern scenario.
NK is acting less stable, Japan is in range. New Kim is far less predictable than old .
Japan in this case would only be taking the ability to defend its homeland and peoples from enemy attack.
This a more a precaution and maybe move to show Kim, that Japan will not let its people be harmed without a price to be paid.
The arguments that Japan shouldnt be allowed to defend itself because they are shamed by their history and try to bury it means that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves from North Korea until they get struck by missiles? Do they have to relive Nagasaki or Hiroshima before they are allowed to do anything to North Korea?
The Germans did horrible things to Europe, but they are allowed to (in theory, not that they feel inclined to) maintain an army?
If NK wasn't a buffer state between China and western allied powers, it probably would have been 'liberated' decades ago. Or even when they started lobbing missiles into the Sea of
Japan.
Crazyterran wrote: The arguments that Japan shouldnt be allowed to defend itself because they are shamed by their history and try to bury it means that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves from North Korea until they get struck by missiles? Do they have to relive Nagasaki or Hiroshima before they are allowed to do anything to North Korea?
The Germans did horrible things to Europe, but they are allowed to (in theory, not that they feel inclined to) maintain an army?
If NK wasn't a buffer state between China and western allied powers, it probably would have been 'liberated' decades ago. Or even when they started lobbing missiles into the Sea of
Japan.
They even have confirmed WMD's in nuclear and chemical weaponry.
Yet China remains there sheild.
Turkey still negates the Armenian genocide and no one thinks that they shouldn't have an army. Sadly, because that's another dangerous islamic dictatorship..
It doesen't seem that france, holland, portugal, spain and great britain condemned so firmly their colonial past. And yet no one would limit their right to defend their countries, even if they were responsible for horrible actions in their past.
Japan can be a great partner for western societies, actually it currenty is, many european countries (including mine) can only learn from japan.
Ketara wrote: That's a bit like me linking to an article about a drunk crown prince from Saudia Arabia foreigner urinating on war memorial and trying to use that to justify an assertion about all foreigners being disrespectful.
How in the world is that equivalent to “Japanese officials have formally asked the South Korean government to remove a statue erected by activists in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul”? There are so many different problem with that comparison that I don't even know where to start. Maybe with “A formal demand is completely different from a drunk act of vandalism”, or with “Japanese officials represent Japan in a way that “a drunk crown prince from Saudi Arabia” doesn't do for “all foreigners”.
Actions by a single department (and possibly even single member) of the Japanese Government is not Japanese Society. You could use that as one piece of evidence, but it far from a complete picture draws, and only a moron would accept purely evidence of that type for substantiating an entire supposed sociological trend. That was the point, as opposed to being a precise like-for-like comparison.
You keep evading my requests for evidence to the point where I'm now starting to think you simply don't have it. When someone has stated that they're willing to be convinced by you, but all you can do is keep picking up minor points for argument (when the other person isn't really arguing with you), it starts looking like you're not actually interested in demonstrating the veracity of your hypothesis.
You've made an exceedingly broad assertion. You need a decent evidence base for something like that. So I repeat, put up and stump up.
Ketara wrote: Actions by a single department (and possibly even single member) of the Japanese Government is not Japanese Society.
Yeah, sure. A single member that did something horribly shameful but that wasn't contradicted by anyone else in the Japanese government and that didn't raise any complaints from the rest of Japanese society. Keep being disingenuous, because at this rate, nothing will ever be representative of a problem in Japanese society.
Ketara wrote: You keep evading my requests for evidence to the point where I'm now starting to think you simply don't have it.
What evidence would you accept? Because it seems pretty obvious nothing will ever be enough. Officials from Japan making official complaint without any negative reaction from the population? Not evidence of anything. The head of state going regularly to honor war criminals? No evidence at all! No movie about it being ever filmed, and foreign movies about it never being shown, even when historically accurate AND not demonizing Japanese (despite what tons of people that never saw the film claimed, out of their asses, based on nothing)? No evidence at all. Well I guess if you glue your eyes shut…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: So.... That means NK is not gonna threaten Japan to if they turn into morons with a death wish. ?
That means if DPROK turns into “morons with a death wish”, then ROK will deal with it, because they have to.
Oh yeah, that means Japan will be dependent on ROK for their safety. I don't see no problem with this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: Do they have to relive Nagasaki or Hiroshima before they are allowed to do anything to North Korea?
Yep. Sure. It's not like it's going to happen, see answer just above.
Crazyterran wrote: The Germans did horrible things to Europe, but they are allowed to (in theory, not that they feel inclined to) maintain an army?
I explained the difference between Japan and Germany a dozen time in this thread. Why do you completely ignore it?
Yeah, sure. A single member that did something horribly shameful but that wasn't contradicted by anyone else in the Japanese government and that didn't raise any complaints from the rest of Japanese society. Keep being disingenuous, because at this rate, nothing will ever be representative of a problem in Japanese society.
What evidence would you accept? Because it seems pretty obvious nothing will ever be enough. Officials from Japan making official complaint without any negative reaction from the population? Not evidence of anything. The head of state going regularly to honor war criminals? No evidence at all! No movie about it being ever filmed, and foreign movies about it never being shown, even when historically accurate AND not demonizing Japanese (despite what tons of people that never saw the film claimed, out of their asses, based on nothing)? No evidence at all. Well I guess if you glue your eyes shut…
So far at best (and it's far from guaranteed), all you've demonstrated is that the current political party in power in Japan is not doing enough to 'acknowledge' (still a reasonably broad phrase) the past. As any half-wit could puzzle out, that's not sufficient basis to judge even all political parties in Japan, let alone all of Japanese society.
But yet again, you keep 'ridiculing' (your description of what you're doing) requests for concrete evidence and saying I won't accept any instead of, y'know, actually providing it. Will you do the same thing in yet another post, or will you actually posit evidence equivalent to the assertions you're making? Find out in Hybrid's next post....
Ketara wrote: But yet again, you keep 'ridiculing' (your description of what you're doing) requests for concrete evidence and saying I won't accept any instead of, y'know, actually providing it.
Did you answer my question about which kind of evidence you would accept? Because, yeah, I can't provide you with something that doesn't exist, but the fact you would reject literally any and all evidence doesn't mean that it's not true.
Ketara wrote: But yet again, you keep 'ridiculing' (your description of what you're doing) requests for concrete evidence and saying I won't accept any instead of, y'know, actually providing it.
Did you answer my question about which kind of evidence you would accept? Because, yeah, I can't provide you with something that doesn't exist, but the fact you would reject literally any and all evidence doesn't mean that it's not true.
errrr......scroll up? Tell you what, I'll repost it for you, and save you the effort.
Ketara wrote: I am open to being convinced, but for claims that broad and far-ranging, you should be able to point to multiple Japanese histories ignoring it, specific general educational curriculum which goes out of its way to ignore it, monuments being defaced, museums which should have exhibits on it but do not, etcetc.I'd also appreciate any sociological/anthropological studies and suchlike on the phenomena, and (if you have any) personal empirical tales and anecdotes from your time there demonstrating it. All that sort of jazz.
I've given you a range there from empirical experiences to academic studies which I'd be happy to examine. If you can come up with another type of evidence not named, I'm happy to accept it. Generally speaking, the ideal way for advancing an argument would be to have a corroborating mesh of sources/evidence of different types in order to put across the strongest possible case.
jhe90 wrote: So.... That means NK is not gonna threaten Japan to if they turn into morons with a death wish. ?
That means if DPROK turns into “morons with a death wish”, then ROK will deal with it, because they have to.
Oh yeah, that means Japan will be dependent on ROK for their safety. I don't see no problem with this.
.....
MY POST BELOW
Ok..So SK has to busy and defend own people from attack, its own defenses will be under ernough strain yet alone acting ias a defense line for Japan too.
No, Japan help by adding more missile defence protecting there own people like any nation state has a DUTY to do so within the best of its abilities. and can act to prevent the NK ships and aircraft from being ble to flank behind the DMZ along with the SK and US fleets and also prevent assult on ships in the sea of Japan who might be targets.
They also 1000km from NK coast roughly to Tokeyo, well in range of at least 2 tested and one to two untested NK missile systems.
Southkorea cannot defend all of the Japan home Islands and Japan SDF will have to defend there people also.
...
Lastly your attidude we should hold Japan continuely to actions like this, oh.. ever read the mis ww1 period to ww2?
we punished Germanny, where did that end up exactly? cut Japan some slack, they have had punishment and judgement ernough at this point.
Ketara wrote: you should be able to point to multiple Japanese histories ignoring it
Japanese histories? Do you mean history books? Or stories?
Ketara wrote: specific general educational curriculum which goes out of its way to ignore it
Japanese history manuals regularly make it to news titles.
There is even a Wikipedia article about those:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies You could have found it easily by a Google search, and if you had ever manifested any interest into any of this you would definitely know about those. So yeah, all this comforts me into the idea you are being completely disingenuous here.
Ketara wrote: museums which should have exhibits on it but do not
Wnat do you mean “should”? Given how disingenuous you have been, I am going to ask you under which circumstances do you consider that a museum should have exhibits showing Japanese war crimes…
Ketara wrote: 'd also appreciate any sociological/anthropological studies
Ketara wrote: Generally speaking, the ideal way for advancing an argument would be to have a corroborating mesh of sources/evidence of different types in order to put across the strongest possible case.
So, yeah, you definitely want me to write you a book…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Ok..So SK has to busy and defend own people from attack, its own defenses will be under ernough strain yet alone acting ias a defense line for Japan too.
The thing is, ROK doesn't own a magical crystal ball telling them “This missile will go to Japan” and “This one is going to Korea”. So, they have to act as a defense line for Japan if they want to maintain their own safety.
jhe90 wrote: Lastly your attidude we should hold Japan continuely to actions like this, oh.. ever read the mis ww1 period to ww2?
we punished Germanny, where did that end up exactly? cut Japan some slack, they have had punishment and judgement ernough at this point.
The comparison is preposterous and you should learn history.
Look at those pics ffs:
I'll wait for the list of crimes against humanity committed by Germany during WW1 and the following revisionism too. Can you find any lol?
Japanese histories? Do you mean history books? Or stories?
Either? Literature is a powerful tool for discerning sociological trends at times, be it academic or otherwise. One needs to bear context in mind when performing textual analysis though.
Apparently private companies write the textbooks distributed to Japanese schools, and there is some fear that ones which are more sympathetic towards whitewashing the past are likely to be approved. This is based on a historical case some seventy odd years ago, and a more recent example from 2001. The textbook from 2001 was utilised by only 0.039% of actual schools however, indicating a severe difference between any governmental bias and actual impact upon Japanese society. It is also a basic requirement that government approved textbooks must make explicit reference to Japanese atrocities. It is noted that whilst this is done, the tone used is usually dispassionate (something I would approve of as a professional historian, tbh).
Following on through the Wikipedia links which source the article, there's a journal article of note.
It offers a handy description of attempts by neonationalists to subvert the governmental approval process and its supporters within government. It also references the 'failure' of the book to achieve its aims given the low exceptionally low takeup on it.
Conclusion on first source:- There seems to be a bent amongst individuals within the Japanese Government towards implicitly supporting whitewashing of Japanese war crimes, but the existence of government enforced mention of atrocities and the freedom to choose textbooks for the most part indicates that it is not institutionalised. The huge boycott which seems to have ensued would also indicate quite strongly that such views are not held by wider Japanese society at large (the article states that which textbook to buy is the decision of local school boards, which would be a large sample of professional educators in Japan).
Wnat do you mean “should”? Given how disingenuous you have been, I am going to ask you under which circumstances do you consider that a museum should have exhibits showing Japanese war crimes…
One would assume that a museum related to the second world war would make reference in some way. So if, for example, you could show a museum dedicated to Japanese special forces which very deliberately excluded references to the less savoury things they might have done in their exhibitions/displays, that would help to make your case.
So, yeah, you definitely want me to write you a book…
So far you've now provided me with a single functional link which would appear to disprove your own claims. It shouldn't require a book to make an obvious case, don't you think? Most people, myself included, succeed in doing it on Dakka quite regularly.
So yeah, all this comforts me into the idea you are being completely disingenuous here....Given how disingenuous you have been
If you need to be 'comforted' into believing a questioning of your beliefs is disingenuous in order to permit you to 'ridicule' them, you would appear to have problems.
I suppose there's this. Though it's not exactly the extremes implied, it demonstrates that there's some form of hesitation still in elements of the culture.
I've picked Unbroken again, because, going back to the first page, it's what made my father all of a sudden get so weird about the country.
I suppose one thing to contrast this is, for example, England's response to Braveheart. - Which had the elements of so much of the 'worst' parts (such as The English using 'prima nocta' on the Scottish) being essentially made up.
Compel wrote: I suppose there's this. Though it's not exactly the extremes implied, it demonstrates that there's some form of hesitation still in elements of the culture.
I've picked Unbroken again, because, going back to the first page, it's what made my father all of a sudden get so weird about the country.
I suppose one thing to contrast this is, for example, England's response to Braveheart. - Which had the elements of so much of the 'worst' parts (such as The English using 'prima nocta' on the Scottish) being essentially made up.
Thanks for the contribution.
Perusing the news report you linked, despite online rage by some of the right wing, it would appear that the general public seems not particularly bothered by the whole affair. Since it's been mentioned before, I ran a search for a number of other articles relating to it. Generally speaking, there seems to be a trend of referring to 'online buzz' but not attributing it, and the odd anonymous death threat with regards to that film. Which, tbh, you get for a lot of films. Lots of people are very easy to offend, sadly. I found this link of particular interest:-
Despite death threats that forced Li to temporarily leave the country, distributor Argo Pictures opened an uncut version of “Yasukuni” in May 2008 with tight police security and it became an indie hit, with nearly 130,000 admissions...
There is also “The Cove” — Louie Psihoyos’ 2009 documentary about the dolphin hunts in the port of Taiji, Wakayama Prefecture — which drew fire from rightists and outraged locals for depictions that were described as slanted, fake and racist. In response to a campaign against the film’s Japan release, which included loud protests at the office of local distributor Unplugged, several theaters initially cancelled screenings, but the film finally opened at six venues nationwide in July 2010. Though demonstrators converged on four of the cinemas, police presence ensured that theatergoers entered undisturbed, while two theaters in Tokyo and Yokohama secured court injunctions against protests on their premises..
I find it mildly entertaining that whilst the film depictions of Japanese atrocities barely get two spits and a cough in person, a film about dolphin hunts actually got protestors on the streets. Yasakuni also is described as an 'indie hit' based upon admissions figures. It lends further credence to the now forming trend that the average Japanese person really doesn't give a damn, even though the internet and some members of the government are full of right wing rage. Not unlike most countries, tbh.....
Yup, though my point (or at least, what I've been trying to make), is that this attitude feels like something that might have been stronger in the past, but is trending downwards as it becomes less about peoples grandfathers and fathers doing terrible things, and more about the country doing terrible things in the past. - Which, naturally, seems easier to acknowledge.
As far as I understand Japan (which isn't much at all really), older generations (eg retirement age +) have typically held a LOT of sway over Japanese culture and politics in years past.
As I understand it, Japan has a lot of issues with the clash between traditional focuses on family honour, personal honour and face. It must be very disconcerting to try to deal with the thought process of: "I care deeply about my families history and honour" Then having the rest of the world say, "yeah, some of your fathers and grandfathers did some REALLY rubbish things in WW2" and not to just choose to bury your head in the sand about it.
Meanwhile, the next generations are trying to deal with this pressure from older generations, trying to balance the knowledge of what's happened, with the whole honour system. So you then get the whole sort of 'salaryman' situation, working yourself to death to provide for your family.
Then you've got generations after that who are probably less hung up on the whole WW2 situation (as it's now Great Grandfather territory), but are having to deal with this whole 'salaryman' focus, that's intensified on them. Some of whom may be rejecting it, preferring fantasies instead. Which could be a potential source of the... ahem... more problematic... elements of modern Japanese culture.
Generations after that, I'm guessing would be a little more typically Westernised and a lot of their situations would echo the millennial stuff in the West, with the added 'salaryman' pressures and retaining some elements of the, um, fantasist, issues.
I have a feeling a lot of what I've written is incredibly racist and for that I apologise. And, yet, it's still based on various impressions I've picked up over my life and time, so therefore I invite people to not just correct me but also show me where my impressions have gone wrong. I also acknowledge this is all very handwavey and broadstrokes-ey.
As to how it all fits into the whole, 'Japan needs to rearm' thing. Well, much like how the cultures been changing, I think it's a case that as the oldest political generations lose influence and, have lost influence, the less relevant the worries about an armed Japan would be, as the culture quite simply isn't that anymore. Whether it's there yet, or nearly there, I have no idea.
So, for instance, this manga series happening during the invasion of China by Japan, and featuring a Japanese man in China, but never referring to Japanese war crimes, counts? Waiting for your reasons why it somehow doesn't count.
Ketara wrote: One would assume that a museum related to the second world war would make reference in some way. So if, for example, you could show a museum dedicated to Japanese special forces which very deliberately excluded references to the less savoury things they might have done in their exhibitions/displays, that would help to make your case.
Ketara wrote: So far you've now provided me with a single functional link which would appear to disprove your own claims.
And all the previous arguments. While you have provided… nothing. Couldn't even fix the typo in the “non-functional” link.
Ketara wrote: It shouldn't require a book to make an obvious case, don't you think?
Sure. I made it already. You answered “No, you gave convincing evidence but you need to give more and more of them or else it doesn't prove anything”. i.e. you want me to write a book, while you nitpick on every little detail.
Ketara wrote: Most people, myself included, succeed in doing it on Dakka quite regularly.
Ahah I'm sure you did, buddy, I'm so proud of you.
Ahah I'm sure you did, buddy, I'm so proud of you.
You're actually kind of adorable. You keep writing like a sixteen year old who just discovered sarcasm and thinks he's edgy.
Nah, I think I'm done trying to get you to write any kind of coherent argument for now. It's quite clear to everyone by now that your doubtless rapier wit is about all you're willing to contribute. Run along and play on 4chan, there's a good fellow.
Compel wrote: Yup, though my point (or at least, what I've been trying to make), is that this attitude feels like something that might have been stronger in the past, but is trending downwards as it becomes less about peoples grandfathers and fathers doing terrible things, and more about the country doing terrible things in the past. - Which, naturally, seems easier to acknowledge.
As far as I understand Japan (which isn't much at all really), older generations (eg retirement age +) have typically held a LOT of sway over Japanese culture and politics in years past.....
....As to how it all fits into the whole, 'Japan needs to rearm' thing. Well, much like how the cultures been changing, I think it's a case that as the oldest political generations lose influence and, have lost influence, the less relevant the worries about an armed Japan would be, as the culture quite simply isn't that anymore. Whether it's there yet, or nearly there, I have no idea.
One would think that the oldest generation would be least likely to get upset due to being most immediate to the war in terms of time period. It would be interesting to see an age demographic to see which generation is the most touchy about the past. Does anyone know if there have been studies on how the descendants of genocidal societies react down the line? It would be interesting reading.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be.
My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
Sounds a whole lot like the U.S., not that the U.S. is really the best example for properly addressing sensitive international topics. Oh, people like to get themselves riled up about Pearl Harbor and D-Day on Normandy whenever they please, but people seem to act like their country isn't the only one to have ever used atomic/nuclear weapons against other humans, largely civilians.
What exactly are you getting at? Using nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about as far from a warcrime as you could get. The use of those atomic bombs actually saved more lives than were lost or maimed by the bombs themselves by causing the Japanese to surrender instead of having to perform a costly invasion, which would have led to far more loss of life on both sides.
Like it or not, it was the right thing to do at the time.
Of course Japan had already started asking for terms for surrender before bombs were dropped...war was already over. Us just wanted to send signal against the remaining enemy Soviet union.
jhe90 wrote: Reading between lines it seems the contraversery was in china for the portrayal of a Japanese solder.
There was no controversy in Japan because the movie was never shown there. And likely never will be.
My point is that the politicians may have made a few declarations (while still going to visit Yasukuni Shrine) but generally the Japanese society still refuse to acknowledge the horrors of its past.
Sounds a whole lot like the U.S., not that the U.S. is really the best example for properly addressing sensitive international topics. Oh, people like to get themselves riled up about Pearl Harbor and D-Day on Normandy whenever they please, but people seem to act like their country isn't the only one to have ever used atomic/nuclear weapons against other humans, largely civilians.
What exactly are you getting at? Using nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about as far from a warcrime as you could get. The use of those atomic bombs actually saved more lives than were lost or maimed by the bombs themselves by causing the Japanese to surrender instead of having to perform a costly invasion, which would have led to far more loss of life on both sides.
Like it or not, it was the right thing to do at the time.
Of course Japan had already started asking for terms for surrender before bombs were dropped...war was already over. Us just wanted to send signal against the remaining enemy Soviet union.
And this is why critics argue the Japanese have never taken responsibility for the War and try to portray themselves as victims.
I don't know why all hate about countrys revisioning the history of other country to put them in bad light.
UK just do that with Spain to a level that even today the most part of Spain hates his own country for crimes invented and exagerated about our black history Spain give southamerica universitys and hospitals, Britain give Northamerica natives smallpox-infected blankets. Who is remembered today as thegenocidal conquistadores?
Japan have to recognise his past, the good parts and the bad parts, but when a country enter a state of self-hatred its a death sentence.
War its a bad thing, every one that form part of one has his hands full with blood. But some more than others.
Galas wrote: I don't know why all hate about countrys revisioning the history of other country to put them in bad light.
UK just do that with Spain to a level that even today the most part of Spain hates his own country for crimes invented and exagerated about our black history Spain give southamerica universitys and hospitals, Britain give Northamerica natives smallpox-infected blankets. Who is remembered today as thegenocidal conquistadores?
Japan have to recognise his past, the good parts and the bad parts, but when a country enter a state of self-hatred its a death sentence.
War its a bad thing, every one that form part of one has his hands full with blood. But some more than others.
Its not self hatred when Japan effectively argues it was a sleepy innocent when it was evilly nuked by that mean USA.
Clearly thats only a segment of population, but its a material segment.
Galas wrote: I don't know why all hate about countrys revisioning the history of other country to put them in bad light.
UK just do that with Spain to a level that even today the most part of Spain hates his own country for crimes invented and exagerated about our black history Spain give southamerica universitys and hospitals, Britain give Northamerica natives smallpox-infected blankets. Who is remembered today as thegenocidal conquistadores?
Japan have to recognise his past, the good parts and the bad parts, but when a country enter a state of self-hatred its a death sentence.
War its a bad thing, every one that form part of one has his hands full with blood. But some more than others.
Its not self hatred when Japan effectively argues it was a sleepy innocent when it was evilly nuked by that mean USA.
Clearly thats only a segment of population, but its a material segment.
Yeah, thats why I say that Japan has to accept his past. But I have seen people here that are asking for Japan to make a Sepuku to redeem himself for his past sins.
I live in the european nation with most people still missing from our Civil War, with more than 1800 common pits still unopened, so believe me, I know how deeply the scars of a war can affect a country and the people living on it. And a country that has never broke from the dictatorship 40 years ago, just reform it into a Socialdemocratic state.
But as I said, one thing its recognition of the crimes a country has commited (Something that Japan hasn't done) and other its lowing the head and just destroy your national identity and pride.
And no, I'm not speaking about nationalism. I'm speaking about patriotism, something that I always have envy from USA.
Nationalism its based in loving your country because you thin others are worse. Patriotism its defending your country with all his shadows and lights because you want a better future to the people living on it.
Of course Japan had already started asking for terms for surrender before bombs were dropped...war was already over. Us just wanted to send signal against the remaining enemy Soviet union.
Japan's surrender overtures were not serious. The terms they wanted from the US was for Japan to be allowed to keep all territory it had conquered prior to December 7th 1941. That's not really a surrender by any stretch of the imagination. If the Japanese had been offering to cede all territory outside of the Home Islands and the Americans dropped the bombs anyway, then you might be able to claim that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary and/or monstrous war crimes.
As it was, officers in the IJA attempted a coup when they learned that the Emperor was going to surrender. That's not a group of people who are at all serious about possibly surrendering to the US.
Of course Japan had already started asking for terms for surrender before bombs were dropped...war was already over. Us just wanted to send signal against the remaining enemy Soviet union.
Japan's surrender overtures were not serious. The terms they wanted from the US was for Japan to be allowed to keep all territory it had conquered prior to December 7th 1941. That's not really a surrender by any stretch of the imagination. If the Japanese had been offering to cede all territory outside of the Home Islands and the Americans dropped the bombs anyway, then you might be able to claim that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary and/or monstrous war crimes.
As it was, officers in the IJA attempted a coup when they learned that the Emperor was going to surrender. That's not a group of people who are at all serious about possibly surrendering to the US.
It took nukes to remotely even convince that the war was lost.
Japan had fought to the death from the outer most islands to the stepping stones to the mainland.
Its pretty clear thr home islands campaign would of been drenched in blood.
Yeah. Japan was not thinking about surrendering before the bombs were dropped. What they were thinking about considering was a cease-fire. They wanted to keep all the territory they still controlled, and likely would have pushed to get back some of the territory the Allies had retaken. It was not anywhere near a surrender. They weren't down on the ground crying "uncle! uncle!".
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. Japan was not thinking about surrendering before the bombs were dropped. What they were thinking about considering was a cease-fire. They wanted to keep all the territory they still controlled, and likely would have pushed to get back some of the territory the Allies had retaken. It was not anywhere near a surrender. They weren't down on the ground crying "uncle! uncle!".
The fact it took two nukes to get them to see sense and surender should be telling.
Well actually, it took 2 Nukes to convince the Emperor to record a national broadcast to make everyone surrender. And even then, his speech never used the words "surrender" or anything to the effect of "we lost the war". He simply told them that the war was over.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean look at Germany, there are few nations more committed to peace. If Germany can do it, so can Japan.
Germany does it in much the same way Japan's doing it - by having a military completely incapable of expeditionary warfare. Japan does it through its constitution, Germany does it through neglect and hilarious underfunding.
Not to derail the thread too much with Germany, but just as Japan has the pacifism in its constitution, Germany has it in its mindset for the last decades. People here, especially with the realization of Nazi war crimes and the death toll of WW2, were pretty much united in their dislike of any military adventurism and anything resembling an "aggressive" military. Originally, the Bundeswehr was solely focused on defense of German territory, not unlike Japan's SDF. It was just after 1990 and the fall of the Soviet Union that a more "global" use of the Bundeswehr was cautiously hinted at by the government, and many, many people were very much against it.
To clarify my own position, I am very much in favor of honoring our NATO agreements and increase military spending and modernize some of our equipment. Nevertheless I'm very happy that our direct neighbors are all friendly by now...
I don't want to sound like an ass here, but having been stationed in Germany during the late 1980s, I can say that the Bundeswehr of the Cold War era was more than capable of offensive action outside it's borders. In fact, if war had broken out in Europe, and we had somehow pushed the WarPac forces back (either conventionally or using tactical nuclear weapons), NATO would have gone on the offensive in an attempt to push the Soviets out of the DDR (and possibly Poland). And West German forces would have been part of that push. That's what they were trained and equipped to do, and they were an important part of NATO's offensive strategy. Their mission wasn't simply self-defense and wasn't constitutionally restricted like the JSDF currently is. West Germany, like Canada, was also trusted with U.S. tactical nuclear weapons during that time, as well. Something the Japanese wouldn't do (and still won't) because of restrictions under their own laws.
The only thing the West Germans lacked was the American, British, and French ability to project serious power globally on their own.
Grey Templar wrote: Well actually, it took 2 Nukes to convince the Emperor to record a national broadcast to make everyone surrender. And even then, his speech never used the words "surrender" or anything to the effect of "we lost the war". He simply told them that the war was over.
Given the religion and such of time that was closest that would end the war.
The Emperor was a figure head by that stage, thr top military where ones who held true power.
Grey Templar wrote: Well actually, it took 2 Nukes to convince the Emperor to record a national broadcast to make everyone surrender. And even then, his speech never used the words "surrender" or anything to the effect of "we lost the war". He simply told them that the war was over.
It was a way to "save face" and maintain "honor in defeat". The United States was cool with that as long as the surrender was unconditional.
We handled the Japanese differently than the Germans, mostly because MacArthur didn't want to make the same mistakes the occupation forces in Europe were making at the time.
Grey Templar wrote: Well actually, it took 2 Nukes to convince the Emperor to record a national broadcast to make everyone surrender. And even then, his speech never used the words "surrender" or anything to the effect of "we lost the war". He simply told them that the war was over.
It was a way to "save face" and maintain "honor in defeat". The United States was cool with that as long as the surrender was unconditional.
We handled the Japanese differently than the Germans, mostly because MacArthur didn't want to make the same mistakes the occupation forces in Europe were making at the time.
Very different cultures too, no one size fits all fix.
The east required different thinking.
Surrender wad achieved. Peace. What name or word used matters little but that lives where stopped being expended in war.
oldravenman3025 wrote: We handled the Japanese differently than the Germans, mostly because MacArthur didn't want to make the same mistakes the occupation forces in Europe were making at the time.
Grey Templar wrote: Well actually, it took 2 Nukes to convince the Emperor to record a national broadcast to make everyone surrender. And even then, his speech never used the words "surrender" or anything to the effect of "we lost the war". He simply told them that the war was over.
It was a way to "save face" and maintain "honor in defeat". The United States was cool with that as long as the surrender was unconditional.
We handled the Japanese differently than the Germans, mostly because MacArthur didn't want to make the same mistakes the occupation forces in Europe were making at the time.
Very different cultures too, no one size fits all fix.
The east required different thinking.
Surrender wad achieved. Peace. What name or word used matters little but that lives where stopped being expended in war.
oldravenman3025 wrote: We handled the Japanese differently than the Germans, mostly because MacArthur didn't want to make the same mistakes the occupation forces in Europe were making at the time.
What mistakes were those?
The occupations forces started out a bit heavy handed, and the de-Nazification programs were initially carried out in the harshest of manners (with the possible exception of the British). And there was a period of violent backlash from some Germans because of it (Allied actions generated recruits and sympathies in some quarters to secretive groups of Hitler's holdouts during that period).
I suggest reading an eye-opening book written by Canadian professor and historian Dr. Perry Biddiscombe titled The Last Nazis: SS Werewolf Guerrilla Resistance in Europe 1944-1947 (along with several other titles written by him on the subject of the immediate post-war era in Germany). It's very informative, and shows post-war Germany wasn't as quiet as some believe.
These threads always make me wish I had paid more attention during history in school. I found it boring then but interesting now. Youth is truly wasted on the young.
Pearl Harbour was nothing. We are talking Unit 731 2 and Nanking Massacre 2 here…
jhe90 wrote: At some point you have to stop beating the grankids for grampas war.
I am not beating them for grandpas war. They were not born at that time, they have no responsibility for it. I am beating them for denying what grandpas did during this war.
Just like I'm not blaming holocaust deniers for an holocaust that happened before they were born, I am blaming them for denying it happened.
Can't find your right post but i think you said germany didn't deny or censor things with nazis or similar.
Here's some evidence to the contrary in gaming.
Dorkly is awesome btw. Love them. Been a while since i checked in on them though.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Can't find your right post but i think you said germany didn't deny or censor things with nazis or similar.
Oh, they do, but not at all in the same way that the Japanese do, and not at all for the same intentions.
They decided to put limits on free speech to fight against neo-nazis, with unintended consequence for video games like Wolfenstein. But they certainly showed movies like Schindler's list, or Inglorious Basterds for that matter.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Dorkly is awesome btw. Love them. Been a while since i checked in on them though.
Dorkly are indeed awesome, except for their “List” videos that I find clickbaity as hell and that I usually just skip, like I did when this one appeared in my feed ^^.
oldravenman3025 wrote: We handled the Japanese differently than the Germans, mostly because MacArthur didn't want to make the same mistakes the occupation forces in Europe were making at the time.
What mistakes were those?
The occupations forces started out a bit heavy handed, and the de-Nazification programs were initially carried out in the harshest of manners (with the possible exception of the British). And there was a period of violent backlash from some Germans because of it (Allied actions generated recruits and sympathies in some quarters to secretive groups of Hitler's holdouts during that period).
I suggest reading an eye-opening book written by Canadian professor and historian Dr. Perry Biddiscombe titled The Last Nazis: SS Werewolf Guerrilla Resistance in Europe 1944-1947 (along with several other titles written by him on the subject of the immediate post-war era in Germany). It's very informative, and shows post-war Germany wasn't as quiet as some believe.
Just to add, the occupation was relatively harsh, but by no means excessive in the denazification. The mistake they made was the assumption denazification was even possible as most important or vital positions were almost always fulfilled by former Nazi's who had the knowhow. There was still quite some Nazi support for a good while after the war with Hitler fans being able to discuss how great it was using the acronym USA (roughly translated it stands for "our sweet Adolf"). But this never took on a great role in post war Germany.
The period of violent backlash is quite contested. Dr. Biddiscombe is very much an outlier in the debate about organizations such as Werwolf and the common consensus by historians such as Antoney Beevor and Ian Kershaw is that these organizations were very limited in scope and action besides a few assassinations during or directly after the war. The RAND Corporation even did research into possible U.S. casualties after the war to German resistance and came to the conclusion no Americans died as a consequence of hostile action.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Can't find your right post but i think you said germany didn't deny or censor things with nazis or similar.
Oh, they do, but not at all in the same way that the Japanese do, and not at all for the same intentions.
They decided to put limits on free speech to fight against neo-nazis, with unintended consequence for video games like Wolfenstein. But they certainly showed movies like Schindler's list, or Inglorious Basterds for that matter.
Hybrid is completely right. Germany forbids the use of Nazi imagery and signs for the use of political statements and entertainment. You need special permission to be able to show the swastika, but in historical movies or documentaries this is frequently not a problem.
The reason Germany censors these video games is that they are used for entertainment purpose and this is considered wrong, they also heavily censor violent games because Germany is against the glorification of Nazi Germany or violence (which video games frequently do) in public.
Showing German atrocities or making movies or exhibitions about it is perfectly fine, but the way Germany operates gives it the final say in how Nazi imagery is used. The nice side effect is that it allows them to arrest those idiotic people who give the Hitler salute.
Just to add, the occupation was relatively harsh, but by no means excessive in the denazification. The mistake they made was the assumption denazification was even possible as most important or vital positions were almost always fulfilled by former Nazi's who had the knowhow. There was still quite some Nazi support for a good while after the war with Hitler fans being able to discuss how great it was using the acronym USA (roughly translated it stands for "our sweet Adolf"). But this never took on a great role in post war Germany.
The period of violent backlash is quite contested. Dr. Biddiscombe is very much an outlier in the debate about organizations such as Werwolf and the common consensus by historians such as Antoney Beevor and Ian Kershaw is that these organizations were very limited in scope and action besides a few assassinations during or directly after the war. The RAND Corporation even did research into possible U.S. casualties after the war to German resistance and came to the conclusion no Americans died as a consequence of hostile action.
The actual SS Werewolf units that were founded at the end of the war by the Third Reich were indeed of limited effectiveness. And while there weren't many Allied personnel killed by insurgent activity (at least, in the West), and material damage was more of an annoyance than anything, they still had an impact on the nature and attitudes of post-war Germany. As Dr. Biddiscombe pointed out, despite the founding constitutions of both West and East Germany, on the surface, being "shining examples of statecraft", the reality wasn't as shiny. West Germany ended up with a so-called "chancellor's democracy" (at least until the end of the Adenauer era). And we know the dark history of East Germany and the infamous Stasi (It should be noted that the Soviets remained on their guard for Werewolf activity well into the early 1950s, so something was up). Most of the hardline attitudes, and methods of dealing with opposition by the powers that be at any given time, in the divided Germany can be attributed (at least in part) to the legacy of the Werewolves, and their spin-off groups, during the immediate post war era. An influence that went beyond the minimum loss in manpower and material as a result of their activities.
While the level of violence and casualties can most definitely be debated, since there is no clear consensus across the board, there was documented subversion, killings, and sabotage attempts in the western sectors well into 1947-1948. The heavy-handed actions in response only made things worse, breeding more problems until new policies were implemented (especially by American military authorities; the British didn't have as many problems, and the French were only interested in stripping what they could and shipping it back to France as "war reparations"). The Soviets handled subversion in their usual ruthless manner, with the help of East German communists, until they were confident that things had leveled out in the early 50's (coincidentally with the end of Stalinism in the U.S.S.R, when the level of paranoia dipped slightly).
You make some good points regarding de-nazification. Despite the decimation and loss of life in Germany being a result of the territorial ambitions of Hitler and the NSDAP, there were enough people still alive who fondly remembered the German resurgence in the 1920's and 1930's under Hitler (even if it was for Nazi self-interests and goals). If one looks at the history with a critical eye, and for a moment put aside the atrocities committed by the Third Reich, Hitler's rise had it's roots in a treaty that unfairly put the brunt on Germany after the First World War. Wilson's "Fourteen Points" proposals were ignored by the other allied powers, and the Treaty of Versailles Article 231 was nothing more than a dick move by the other colonial powers to remove a hated rival from the playing field. The victorious allies had lit the slow burning fuse that would set off the next war. Somebody charismatic was set to come along among the resentful Germans, and turn the tables in retribution. And that somebody wasn't likely to be a nice guy. In steps one Adolph Hitler, and the rest is history. It might be disagreeable and disgusting, but it is obvious why some in Germany continued to admire Hitler despite losing the war and the atrocities that came to light afterward.
The nice side effect is that it allows them to arrest those idiotic people who give the Hitler salute.
As somebody from a nation that enshrines free speech and free expression, I find this one of the troubling aspects of modern Germany. Sure, it's in poor taste. And might get somebody an ass whipping from one or more onlookers. But I have never agreed with jailing somebody for saying something I don't like or agree with. But their county, their rules in their country.
As somebody from a nation that enshrines free speech and free expression, I find this one of the troubling aspects of modern Germany. Sure, it's in poor taste. And might get somebody an ass whipping from one or more onlookers. But I have never agreed with jailing somebody for saying something I don't like or agree with. But their county, their rules in their country.
Freedom and democracy don't mean that you can say and do whatever you want, free speech and free expressions are always restricted with some limits. In the USA it's the same story.
If you advocate a system that allows mass muder and is race based you can't manifest in public those political opinions. Nazi and fascism propaganda are (or should be) strictly forbidden in any democracy, as well as islamist hate speechs.
Just to add, the occupation was relatively harsh, but by no means excessive in the denazification. The mistake they made was the assumption denazification was even possible as most important or vital positions were almost always fulfilled by former Nazi's who had the knowhow. There was still quite some Nazi support for a good while after the war with Hitler fans being able to discuss how great it was using the acronym USA (roughly translated it stands for "our sweet Adolf"). But this never took on a great role in post war Germany.
The period of violent backlash is quite contested. Dr. Biddiscombe is very much an outlier in the debate about organizations such as Werwolf and the common consensus by historians such as Antoney Beevor and Ian Kershaw is that these organizations were very limited in scope and action besides a few assassinations during or directly after the war. The RAND Corporation even did research into possible U.S. casualties after the war to German resistance and came to the conclusion no Americans died as a consequence of hostile action.
The actual SS Werewolf units that were founded at the end of the war by the Third Reich were indeed of limited effectiveness. And while there weren't many Allied personnel killed by insurgent activity (at least, in the West), and material damage was more of an annoyance than anything, they still had an impact on the nature and attitudes of post-war Germany. As Dr. Biddiscombe pointed out, despite the founding constitutions of both West and East Germany, on the surface, being "shining examples of statecraft", the reality wasn't as shiny. West Germany ended up with a so-called "chancellor's democracy" (at least until the end of the Adenauer era). And we know the dark history of East Germany and the infamous Stasi (It should be noted that the Soviets remained on their guard for Werewolf activity well into the early 1950s, so something was up). Most of the hardline attitudes, and methods of dealing with opposition by the powers that be at any given time, in the divided Germany can be attributed (at least in part) to the legacy of the Werewolves, and their spin-off groups, during the immediate post war era. An influence that went beyond the minimum loss in manpower and material as a result of their activities.
While the level of violence and casualties can most definitely be debated, since there is no clear consensus across the board, there was documented subversion, killings, and sabotage attempts in the western sectors well into 1947-1948. The heavy-handed actions in response only made things worse, breeding more problems until new policies were implemented (especially by American military authorities; the British didn't have as many problems, and the French were only interested in stripping what they could and shipping it back to France as "war reparations"). The Soviets handled subversion in their usual ruthless manner, with the help of East German communists, until they were confident that things had leveled out in the early 50's (coincidentally with the end of Stalinism in the U.S.S.R, when the level of paranoia dipped slightly).
You make some good points regarding de-nazification. Despite the decimation and loss of life in Germany being a result of the territorial ambitions of Hitler and the NSDAP, there were enough people still alive who fondly remembered the German resurgence in the 1920's and 1930's under Hitler (even if it was for Nazi self-interests and goals). If one looks at the history with a critical eye, and for a moment put aside the atrocities committed by the Third Reich, Hitler's rise had it's roots in a treaty that unfairly put the brunt on Germany after the First World War. Wilson's "Fourteen Points" proposals were ignored by the other allied powers, and the Treaty of Versailles Article 231 was nothing more than a dick move by the other colonial powers to remove a hated rival from the playing field. The victorious allies had lit the slow burning fuse that would set off the next war. Somebody charismatic was set to come along among the resentful Germans, and turn the tables in retribution. And that somebody wasn't likely to be a nice guy. In steps one Adolph Hitler, and the rest is history. It might be disagreeable and disgusting, but it is obvious why some in Germany continued to admire Hitler despite losing the war and the atrocities that came to light afterward.
It is also important to note the distinction between approaches of Allied Soviet and Allied Western approaches. The Soviets had to deal with a lot of low scale guerrilla warfare for years in Eastern Europe and faced organized resistance groups and dealing with the subsequent ethnic cleansing that wet on after the borders were shifted. East-Germany was more brutal because it was just the nature of the regime taking charge. Organizations such as Werwolf were more of a psychological issue to the Allies who tended to be more afraid of the possible consequences than reality. The Soviets just kept an 'eye' out because it was mighty helpful for them politically speaking to keep the idea of such a hostile organization live for prosecuting people. This is were most of the historical debates are placed, was it mostly just a psychological effect or did they actually have any significant impact? Most historians argue that they didn't. I'm not trying to put down Biddiscombe, just pointing out that he is an outlier.
This is were the dark history comes in. The heavy handed approach and denazification went hand in hand and this is why things went badly. Everybody who had the slightest incling of how to run government had been involved in the Nazi party to a certain extent. There was no possible way to accept that fact and keep going with the heavy handed approach. The Allies just needed these people and some of the most horrible war criminals only got a few years or nothing because they were deemed to valuable in the end, Werner von Braun going to the USA might be the most famous example. For a lot of people the Nazi regime represented the good old days were they could work in peace on horrific experiments, profit from the extermination of their neighbours (taking over houses or business from Jews for example) and restore Germany as a great power. Most Germans were still against going to war however, if you read about the period its completely detaching fro reality to seem them regret the war but not the vast amount of murders. The amount of denial that still occurred in Germany is also greatly underestimated. We all like to think that the Germans dealt with their history very well and in part they did, but the 1990's were a very difficult period in which they had to come to terms with the vast scope of what they did. Before they always claimed more that it was the Nazi's and the SS but it became painfully clear the vast amount of soldiers on the Eastern Front had either witnessed or participated in atrocities. The myth of the clean 'Wehrmacht' that those that served had tried to promote became undone and many Germans had to confront the idea that their fathers, uncles or grandfathers knew or did a lot more than they let on. Although the idea that all Germans knew and willingly went along like Daniel Goldhagen claimed in the 1990's is equally ridiculous. But the cult of personality Hitler fostered and the air of denial around what had happened certainly did live on in a good number of Germans after the war and even now there are a handful actively longing for those 'good old days'.
Hitler's rise is a combination of luck and factors of the previous war. I think the Treaty of Versailles has been covered plenty of times and was a decent factor in explaining his 'succes' in elections. He never really did gain a significant amount of votes, the most he was able to get was close to a third with all the rigging he could manage, then going close to full dictator to wipe out political parties to give himself a majority but then just going to the president role to rule by decree. Cancelling Versailles was a good part of his program to get elected, but he never mentioned getting revenge and the anti antisemitism was significantly downplayed. The idea of going to war to cancel Versailles was hated almost universally and only gained some traction after the fall of Poland but people only really got into the revenge and war idea once France had mostly fallen. The military still planned on killing Hitler if it seemed he would push Germany to war in the 38-39 period, but they completely chickened out (the failure of appeasement in not checking Germany in 38 when it was relatively weak) and then became totally dependent on him. Wilson was a dreamer and his fourteen points would have been ignored even domestically. There just wasn't any international or domestic support for his semi revolutionary ideas at the time and even he himself didn't really push them that hard, you can read Ho Chi Minh's recollections of the Versailles negotiations and Wilson's self determination, they are quite interesting with him becoming major figure in both French and US history later on.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The nice side effect is that it allows them to arrest those idiotic people who give the Hitler salute.
As somebody from a nation that enshrines free speech and free expression, I find this one of the troubling aspects of modern Germany. Sure, it's in poor taste. And might get somebody an ass whipping from one or more onlookers. But I have never agreed with jailing somebody for saying something I don't like or agree with. But their county, their rules in their country.
I think it just has to do with US cultural perception. While the US has had some very dark pages in its history few countries can claim to have had worse histories than Nazi Germany (although some regimes certainly come/came close). The culmination of Nazi ideology was basically murdering people and using Nazi imagery or gestures ultimately leads to the conclusion of wanting to go back to those similar good old days. Its racism and hatred pure and simple when you see people giving the Hitler salute next to a refugee center burning down or someone that looks 'foreign' being arrested (or even to a police officer over a disagreement accusing them of being a Nazi). Sure the US might not have the strictest laws against Nazi imagery or statements (you didn't go full Nazi America either) but running around in a KKK outfit will certainly cause you a whole lot of trouble both socially and professionally, even if the state doesn't always intervene. The same goes for Eastern European countries prohibiting displays of the Soviet Red Star, it might seem strange to some of us, but then we haven't been living under some of the most oppresive and brutal regimes in history.
Furthermore a lot of censoring is also just about displaying violence in European media, where the U.S. has this more towards displays of sexuality (going outside just the Nazi debate of course).
.
I guess you also want 20M or so Germans killed after their re-armament?
.
