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.

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.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2016/02/06/entertainment-news/angelina-jolies-film-unbroken-finally-opens-in-japan/#.WN-RyDvytPY

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.

Check a map....

There is south Korea which blocks so much of Japan ...

But past a certain angle over south China sea. Only nation it could hit is.... Japan!

So they only need to see a a lunch angle to know it was fired at Japan within a certain

So.. We not need a crystal ball!

 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.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2016/02/06/entertainment-news/angelina-jolies-film-unbroken-finally-opens-in-japan/#.WN-RyDvytPY

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:-

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2015/01/14/films/longer-look-problems-unbroken/

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.

 Ketara wrote:
Either?

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:

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

The link is non-functional.

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

 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.

I'm sure the Yūshūkan somehow doesn't qualify?

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I have no issues with Japan having a proper offensive military again.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I have no issues with Japan having a proper offensive military again.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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 the genocidal 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 the genocidal 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:
but when a country enter a state of self-hatred its a death sentence.

Do you mean like Germany nowadays?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Galas wrote:
but when a country enter a state of self-hatred its a death sentence.

Do you mean like Germany nowadays?

Basically, yes.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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 the genocidal 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.

The scars run deep particularly in China and Korea. We should remember there that WWII began a decade or decades earlier for them.

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.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

squidhills wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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?

 jhe90 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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.

Agreed 100%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Thanks.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
pearl harbour 2.

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:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.