Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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.

They got nukes dropped on them and most of their other cities firebombed to ash. WW2 issues are long since laid to rest.

The living are not responsible for the sins of men long since dead and buried.

[redacted]

 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.

[redacted]

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Japan lost that right for a reason.

So I guess Korea is going to invade them then?

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

Japan paid a massively heavy price in defeat.

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?

I'm outta here.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 womprat49 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

 feeder wrote:

 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?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its history.

Is it history if people refuse to put it in their history books and history courses, though?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its history.

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.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its history.

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.