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.

 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.

Where did anyone say that?

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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.

 DrNo172000 wrote:


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…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

So put up and stump up!

 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”.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 jhe90 wrote:
NK is acting less stable, Japan is in range.

Seoul is 35 miles away from North Korea.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
NK is acting less stable, Japan is in range.

Seoul is 35 miles away from North Korea.

So.... That means NK is not gonna threaten Japan to if they turn into morons with a death wish. ?

They regulary drop missiles in sea off Japan.
No need to be a genius to see they could aim one ay a city...

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]

 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:
monuments being defaced

Because that's somehow more proof than the government official asking for monuments to be removed? Yeah, sure…
http://japandailypress.com/japanese-political-activist-charged-with-vandalism-of-south-korean-comfort-women-monument-1923583/$
Took me 2 seconds thanks to this incredibly powerful tool called a search engine. You could try Google one day, or Duck Duck Go, Bing, Yahoo, any of those really.

 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

Then go buy a damn book or what? Do you expect me to write one for you on Dakka?
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/why-japan-is-still-not-sorry-enough/ ?

 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?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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.

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

So, booting up the first link, what do we find...

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.

http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/3173/article.html

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).

http://japandailypress.com/japanese-political-activist-charged-with-vandalism-of-south-korean-comfort-women-monument-1923583/$

The link is non-functional.

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.