politics

Japan urges China not to focus on 'unfortunate history'

152 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

152 Comments
Login to comment

But why was Japan extending its expansion?

Think it through to its conclusion.

You can almost never accept the first step of logic to be conclusive.

That also applies to beginnings, such as the illogical assumption that says, "Japan started the war when the first pilot to arrive at Pearl Harbor pulled his trigger".

No, you have to ask the why questions and keeping asking them until you can go no further.

You say, "Territorial expansion is never acceptable" and that might be true now, but it was not at the time.

Actually, from the point of international military law, that is also not true.

If a second nation is unable to defend itself, and its invasion by a third party would constitute a risk, then according to interntional law it would be acceptable for a first nation to take it over in order to protect it, a bit like what Japan did to Korea (there was a very real risk of invasion by both Russia and China).

What started the Sino-Chinese war was Chinese troops firing upon legally placed Japanese troops who were at the time exercising. I suppose one might be able to argue that they were acting to protect themselves and Manchukuo although I've never studied that justification.

What I would be unshakeable in believing, is that China specifically, and Asia in general, would have been a much better place for all to live in, and far less people would have suffered, if it had been left under Japan's sphere of influence and the Anglo-Americans and other Europeans not devilled with it through their puppets like Chiang-Kai Shek, their missionaries and their mercinaries.

Had it not been for the USA propping up, arming, financing and advising the Chinese Nationalists, there would have been no war; and I even think that Japan would have come to ease with Mao and the Communists too.

Of course, that was that the Anglo-Americans feared the most and why it justified so much carnage after WWII.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No, the economic blockade by US was intended to serve US interests in establishing its hegemonic rule over the Pacific Asia Region.

No, it because of Japan expansion further into China.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Hansaram

The economic blockade by US is because of Japan war aggression/expansion towards China.

No, the economic blockade by US was intended to serve US interests in establishing its hegemonic rule over the Pacific Asia Region.

It wanted Japan out of the way so it could dominate the economic market.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It is interesting how you just assert this, without any proof.

The proof is already in the wiki link. It clearly stated that they are under the influence of Japan and German.

I see you are not dealing with the rationality point.

Do you accuse other of being irrational if things doesn't goes the way you want? It's a fact that Japan is brutal during WW 2 and this opinion is not just from the west or Chinese but also among us SEA. Our history textbook clearly mention how brutal Japanese really are. SEA agree with western view on Japan.

The League of Nations investigated Manchuria, and on that basis issued its resolution. Really, I'm not complaining too hard about it. I've actually read the Lytton Report and it does logically follow (back then, they actually had to justify their reports, unlike the 1996 UN report on comfort women, which I've read recently and DOES NOT follow).

For all that, China then proceeded to start a war (after a truce). And not only (again) are those new friendly regimes Chinese BUT territorial expansion is perfectly acceptable in wartime under customary international law. Certainly, other countries expanded at Germany's expense during the last big treaty, the Treaty of Versailles, so that would be the big thing.

A lot of talk has been over how harsh the Japanese terms to China are. However, in comparison to even the Treaty of Versailles, they aren't really serious. To say nothing of unconditional surrender.

Not at all. Territorial expansion is never acceptable. That is why I mention even for US who got attacked by war aggressor Japan in Pearl Harbor, they didn't choose to annex Japan even after they defeat Japan. That is why Japan is considered aggressor for both case. League of Nations is sympathetic towards China for the second one as well.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, it's not their independent opinion that for sure. So only 7 countries that truly recognize Manchukou.

It is interesting how you just assert this, without any proof.

Actually, it's not just the west. In SEA, the Japanese are also portrayed the same way as by the west.

I see you are not dealing with the rationality point.

As I said already, it does not justify Japan to expand it's territories into China further which is why League of Nations all against Japan further expansion.

The League of Nations investigated Manchuria, and on that basis issued its resolution. Really, I'm not complaining too hard about it. I've actually read the Lytton Report and it does logically follow (back then, they actually had to justify their reports, unlike the 1996 UN report on comfort women, which I've read recently and DOES NOT follow).

For all that, China then proceeded to start a war (after a truce). And not only (again) are those new friendly regimes Chinese BUT territorial expansion is perfectly acceptable in wartime under customary international law. Certainly, other countries expanded at Germany's expense during the last big treaty, the Treaty of Versailles, so that would be the big thing.

A lot of talk has been over how harsh the Japanese terms to China are. However, in comparison to even the Treaty of Versailles, they aren't really serious. To say nothing of unconditional surrender.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sure, you can say they are Axis controlled / influenced, but they are still countries. Besides, both "heads" got better things to do than pressure them on this relatively small issue.

Well, it's not their independent opinion that for sure. So only 7 countries that truly recognize Manchukou.

Not on the conscious level, but the unconscious level. The average Western historiography depicts Imperial Japanese as not only brutal, but irrational and prideful. Of course, that leaves them to patch the gap between the decent Japanese before around 1930 or after 1945. Japanese culture? That spans over thousands of years. The "solution" is effectively to say "They were crazy then," which eliminates any need to try to really understand what happened, the nuances of the thinking and personalities concerned ... etc.

A statement of "They are crazy" is an acceptance you have no rational solution, and is acceptance of a significant flaw in your theory.

Actually, it's not just the west. In SEA, the Japanese are also portrayed the same way as by the west.

It is usually rationalized this way, and then Americans can't be taught (in mass education at least) that the Chinese shot first at Marco Polo Bridge, since that would blow half (the aggression) part out of China. We are left with the "expansion", but that's weak because again for one thing those regimes are nominally Chinese, for another thing, it is an open secret the US does have interests in China, so the motive is a lot less pure.

We are going repetitive and in circle. As I said already, it does not justify Japan to expand it's territories into China further which is why League of Nations all against Japan further expansion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@DonDonSEP. 11, 2015 - 11:53PM JST

Hansaram I think he mean this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo#Diplomatic_recognition To be more accurate, only 7 countries recognize which are not many. The other countries that recognize are under the influence from their German ally and Japan control.

Sure, you can say they are Axis controlled / influenced, but they are still countries. Besides, both "heads" got better things to do than pressure them on this relatively small issue.

@HansaramSEP. 11, 2015 - 08:15PM JST

Where do you get the idea that mainstream historians think their version not making any sense?Speaking about brutality, here in SEA, we are taught that Imperial Japan rule is very brutal and even more brutal than the British rule.

Not on the conscious level, but the unconscious level. The average Western historiography depicts Imperial Japanese as not only brutal, but irrational and prideful. Of course, that leaves them to patch the gap between the decent Japanese before around 1930 or after 1945. Japanese culture? That spans over thousands of years. The "solution" is effectively to say "They were crazy then," which eliminates any need to try to really understand what happened, the nuances of the thinking and personalities concerned ... etc.

A statement of "They are crazy" is an acceptance you have no rational solution, and is acceptance of a significant flaw in your theory.

The economic blockade by US is because of Japan war aggression/expansion towards China

It is usually rationalized this way, and then Americans can't be taught (in mass education at least) that the Chinese shot first at Marco Polo Bridge, since that would blow half (the aggression) part out of China. We are left with the "expansion", but that's weak because again for one thing those regimes are nominally Chinese, for another thing, it is an open secret the US does have interests in China, so the motive is a lot less pure.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's that the mainstream version of history based on war time propaganda, does not make sense.

Sigh...

The baseless claim "Japan is a victim of America/Chinese propaganda " sadly is a very common method to dismiss criticism and does not prove or validate anything.

The economic blockade by US is because of Japan war aggression/expansion towards China.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ Hansaram

Where do you get the idea that mainstream historians think their version not making any sense?

That's a strange twisting of the previous comment.

It's not that the "mainstream historians" - whatever that might mean - think their version not making any sense.

It's that the mainstream version of history based on war time propaganda, does not make sense.

It simply does not.

It's so shot full of holes that if it was a boat, it would have sunk a long time ago.

It's not actually history, it's mainly just patriotic fantasy.

(And which "mainstream"? Right wing Middle American mainstream or the Communist Party of China's offical history?)

Something that interested me to discover is how the Communist Party of America, which was working with the Soviet backed Comintern, collaborated with the American so called Missionaries who were being paid by the KMY

But, it all comes into focus when you learn that as early as the 1920, Lenin himself had argued and predicted that it was only by promoting a war between the two superpowers in the region -- that is Japan and the USA -- that the communist revolution would spread successfully.

It was so called missionaries and their allies that we have to look for the change in political attitude towards Japan -- based on their exaggerated propaganda -- and the inspiration for the economic blockade that would bring on the war.

Japan is habitually portrayed, as one commentator wrote here, as "hogwild" and crazy.

However, if you study the original historical documents in Japan, you discover that far from being rash, aggressive and out of control behaviour, it was a long and agonizing debate choosing between two equally undesireable options.

The first act of war between the US and Japan, was the economic blockade, not the first bullets at Pear Harbor.

I fear that modern Chinese are no where near understanding what really happened, how and why, and are being deliberately misled.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Hansaram I think he mean this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo#Diplomatic_recognition To be more accurate, only 7 countries recognize which are not many. The other countries that recognize are under the influence from their German ally and Japan control.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Hansaram SEP. 11, 2015 - 01:16PM JST It is actually a fundamental problem of the "mainstream" variant of events. Because it emphasizes pushing every last bit on the Imperial Japanese at all costs, it starts forming gaps of logic in the narrative. Thus one is forced to fill it up by assuming extraordinary brutality. In essence, they know their story doesn't make sense, yet they don't want to change it to something that does.

Where do you get the idea that mainstream historians think their version not making any sense?Speaking about brutality, here in SEA, we are taught that Imperial Japan rule is very brutal and even more brutal than the British rule.

B-29 bomber raids and atom bombs are self-defense, or even proportionate response to Pearl Harbor? Hmm... And as I've pointed out, the US basically got everything any country could possibly want from a war, moving up to the #1 spot in hard and soft power, with a nice ring of bases while actually looking like the good guy. It even threw off the last bit of the Depression (most countries lose economically in war).

Did US annex Japan? No.

It's on the English Wiki as well - just count the countries. The Japanese Wiki says 20 and I can count 15 nations on the English Wiki's list.

Can you give me the English source? I never heard and never seen any mention of countries recognize Manchuoku. What do I need to google to find the wiki page?

It seems to me there are problem with post SEP. 11, 2015 - 01:16PM JST. SOme of my reply somehow caught up in the quote area.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Hansaram SEP. 11, 2015 - 01:16PM JST It is actually a fundamental problem of the "mainstream" variant of events. Because it emphasizes pushing every last bit on the Imperial Japanese at all costs, it starts forming gaps of logic in the narrative. Thus one is forced to fill it up by assuming extraordinary brutality. In essence, they know their story doesn't make sense, yet they don't want to change it to something that does.

Still doesn't justify to expand. Like the USA, they never want to occupy Japan. Just self defense which is totally different and more honorable than the Japanese.

B-29 bomber raids and atom bombs are self-defense, or even proportionate response to Pearl Harbor? Hmm... And as I've pointed out, the US basically got everything any country could possibly want from a war, moving up to the #1 spot in hard and soft power, with a nice ring of bases while actually looking like the good guy. It even threw off the last bit of the Depression (most countries lose economically in war).

Any state under foreign influence is not independent state.

Then all of the OECD is not independent.

And the Allies is totally right on this. Japan expansion on Manchuria is definitely greed.

Personally, I don't mind Manchuria so much because at least the United States, Britain and China are consistent on this. Korea and Taiwan on the other hand are the former two nations doing turnarounds of their old positions.

No one is going to recognize a puppet state or vassal state. Show me your source where it says 15-20 recognize Manchukuo. Please don't use Japanese source.

It's on the English Wiki as well - just count the countries. The Japanese Wiki says 20 and I can count 15 nations on the English Wiki's list.

Show me the link where I can view all the detail about the treaty then.

Try Wikisource. I did try to give you a link, but JapanToday doesn't like underscores. https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%A8%E5%A4%A7%E9%9F%93%E6%B0%91%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AE%E9%96%93%E3%81%AE%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E9%96%A2%E4%BF%82%E3%81%AB%E9%96%A2%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%9D%A1%E7%B4%84

and click for the English version.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Both the USA and China have an interest in portraying Japan as brutal, aggressive etc but the visibile evidence of Japanese society today contradicts all that.

Only the Imperial Japan is portray is brutal which is true, not today/modern Japan.

Certainly that is possible. However, you don't know that because they don't "show their math". That they bothered spending even ten seconds reading Japanese sources (let alone used fair and unbiased critical thinking) before writing their decision requires faith on the part of the reader, since it won't be because it shows in the text. Do they need to spell out everything? If it's an issues brought up by

On a more general point, right wingers contrary to their reputation are often well-mannered, calm people. They know they are fighting an uphill battle and do much more research than the average "mainstream" person (who is also deprived of the ability to fight back because his books don't even contain the opposing view). Yeah right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeWfPTCMCTo Seems like a bunch of problematic people.

If they only shot first, the war won't have started. Please go back to SEP. 04, 2015 - 11:51PM JST post to review what the Chinese did next.

Still doesn't justify to expand. Like the USA, they never want to occupy Japan. Just self defense which is totally different and more honorable than the Japanese.

For one thing, the idea that expanding territory through war is wrong is a post-WWII idea. For another, Japan's plan is not to actually expand territory (as in relabeling pieces of land as Japanese) per se. Rather, it is the establishment of friendly regimes in China. Even Manchukuo. I'm sure you'll denigrate them as "puppet" next, but they are Chinese. No, it's not. 42 out of 43 League of Nation against Japan expansion. Clearly, Japan is seen wrong here. Manchukuo is not Chinese. Any state under foreign influence is not independent state.

At the same time, Du become close to Zhang because the latter was interested in commercial development as a means of strengthening the region against foreign influence, particularly Japanese and Soviet. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=wYakrrQORswC&pg=PA193&dq=zhang+zuolin+foreign+influence&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIj_vr84zuxwIV2AmOCh3RJAsv#v=onepage&q=zhang%20zuolin%20foreign%20influence&f=false

The Allies just changed the rule to ban territorial expansion and got what they wanted by other means. First, they labeled anything they wanted Japan to lose as "gained from greed". Where they can't justify this in their own minds, there's always strong arming Japan during the Occupation to accept their "administration" (a coercion far stronger than anything Japan sicced on China). By the end of all this, China gained Taiwan (in fact, the victorious KMT wound up getting only Taiwan). America became de facto owner of Okinawa for 27 years (3 times longer than the Sino-Japanese War I might point out). American troops gained treaty rights to be stationed in Japan by the division and fleet (that 5,600 looks really minor now doesn't it) and a whole bunch of bases. They now have friendly (cynics might say "puppet") regimes in Japan and South Korea.

I'm not that offended because victors do get some spoils. But really. No expansion?

And the Allies is totally right on this. Japan expansion on Manchuria is definitely greed.

That's OK, because they want it recognized as Manchukuo. On that score, one way or another the final number of countries that recognized Manchukuo was about 15-20 in the world, including what would be some pretty big powers like Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union. Prescription works :-)

No one is going to recognize a puppet state or vassal state. Show me your source where it says 15-20 recognize Manchukuo. Please don't use Japanese source.

You are not dealing with the fact it's not in the treaty text. There is a simple explanation for this - if you look down at the footnotes and can read Japanese, you'll realize that this agreement is not a treaty but a secret agreement 5 months earlier. This kind of secret agreement to table these things is not uncommon, and de facto is what the Japanese and Chinese did for Manchuria before signing the Tanggu Truce.

Show me the link where I can view all the detail about the treaty then.

Such an attitude made Chinese bolder and violence against Japanese including Koreans who migrated to Manchuria as Japanese citizens often happened until at last they declared that they would nullify the treaties that Japan concluded with China. But the Japanese government adhered to the Washington Conference and tried to deal with such a situation in corporation with other members of the conference. That was the background that let “Japan turn to her own military power to guarantee her interests, where hitherto she had relied on multilateral diplomacy.“

Can you show me source for this claim? And I assume there is huge number of Japanese and Korean migrate because if it just small number, I don't think it will cause war. Actually, why is there foreigners like Japanese and Korean migrate there in the first place? I don't hear America migration there.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@HansaramSEP. 08, 2015 - 12:59AM JST

forget to reply tot his in previous post. Does it ever occur to you that the west already research the alternate version and still think the mainstream one is more reliable?

Certainly that is possible. However, you don't know that because they don't "show their math". That they bothered spending even ten seconds reading Japanese sources (let alone used fair and unbiased critical thinking) before writing their decision requires faith on the part of the reader, since it won't be because it shows in the text.

So you also do research on Chinese websites? Does all of you Japanese people know how to speak Chinese? Knowing Chinese characters help you to understand what Chinese language website is saying?

Personally, living in Hong Kong, I read Chinese and Japanese quite well.

On a more general point, right wingers contrary to their reputation are often well-mannered, calm people. They know they are fighting an uphill battle and do much more research than the average "mainstream" person (who is also deprived of the ability to fight back because his books don't even contain the opposing view).

The fact that Japan decided to expand it's territory alone is good enough proof Japan is the war aggressor.

For one thing, the idea that expanding territory through war is wrong is a post-WWII idea. For another, Japan's plan is not to actually expand territory (as in relabeling pieces of land as Japanese) per se. Rather, it is the establishment of friendly regimes in China. Even Manchukuo. I'm sure you'll denigrate them as "puppet" next, but they are Chinese.

Let just assume China start fire first for the sake of argument, it still doesn't justify Japan for expanding it's troops and territory into China.

If they only shot first, the war won't have started. Please go back to SEP. 04, 2015 - 11:51PM JST post to review what the Chinese did next.

Look at the US - Japan war for example. Japan is the one that attack Pearl Harbor first and lost to the US, but the US did not try to expand it's territory into Japan or annex Japan, thus US avoid being called war aggressor in this case.

The Allies just changed the rule to ban territorial expansion and got what they wanted by other means. First, they labeled anything they wanted Japan to lose as "gained from greed". Where they can't justify this in their own minds, there's always strong arming Japan during the Occupation to accept their "administration" (a coercion far stronger than anything Japan sicced on China). By the end of all this, China gained Taiwan (in fact, the victorious KMT wound up getting only Taiwan). America became de facto owner of Okinawa for 27 years (3 times longer than the Sino-Japanese War I might point out). American troops gained treaty rights to be stationed in Japan by the division and fleet (that 5,600 looks really minor now doesn't it) and a whole bunch of bases. They now have friendly (cynics might say "puppet") regimes in Japan and South Korea.

I'm not that offended because victors do get some spoils. But really. No expansion?

Had Japan keep Manchukuo alive until 1950 or longer, I doubt anyone would even recognize it as part of Japan.

That's OK, because they want it recognized as Manchukuo. On that score, one way or another the final number of countries that recognized Manchukuo was about 15-20 in the world, including what would be some pretty big powers like Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union. Prescription works :-)

It says here that territorial dispute need to be settled in the future and both recognized each other claim.

You are not dealing with the fact it's not in the treaty text. There is a simple explanation for this - if you look down at the footnotes and can read Japanese, you'll realize that this agreement is not a treaty but a secret agreement 5 months earlier. This kind of secret agreement to table these things is not uncommon, and de facto is what the Japanese and Chinese did for Manchuria before signing the Tanggu Truce.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Hansaram

In what way that Great Britain and China undermined them to the point Japan invade China?

Actually Britain under Neville Chamberlain was sympathetic to Japan. Britain and Japan were doing business and had crucial interests in China which in those days had no reasonably organized government that could govern the whole country. The Soviets imbued self-assertion and disrespect for foreigners’ privileges among Chinese who began demanding abolishment of treaties they concluded with the Western Powers without modernizing themselves. The U.S. was however rather accommodating to China influenced by American missionaries who even urged the U.S. government to return extraterritoriality to China. Such an attitude made Chinese bolder and violence against Japanese including Koreans who migrated to Manchuria as Japanese citizens often happened until at last they declared that they would nullify the treaties that Japan concluded with China. But the Japanese government adhered to the Washington Conference and tried to deal with such a situation in corporation with other members of the conference. That was the background that let “Japan turn to her own military power to guarantee her interests, where hitherto she had relied on multilateral diplomacy.“

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Here we go again, China again says they won the war against the Japanese, CHINA LOST THAT WAR!

"The Chinese government announced the special holiday as part of a push to encourage more citizens to participate in a host of nationwide activities commemorating what it calls its victory in the 1937-1945 war of resistance against Japanese aggression."

This never happened, China could never have won that war and if Japan did not awaken the Giant all of China would be Japan today, it was china who begged the US to help in a blockade against Japan and because of this Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. every one forgets that it was china that massacred Japanese people for moving to and living on the main land which was the real reason for Japan and China to go to war. History cannot be hidden, But People can try to hide the truth, The US had no business blocking Japan from getting Oil and other material they needed, so It is the US that opened that door to being placed in to a war. no one else. the fight between was only for the two Japan and China which China was losing till the US did what was necessary to defend the Asian countries,

The same thing is happening today, Look what China is doing to all the Sea Asian Countries, China is steeling from the Philippines and other countries land which is not there to have by international Law and there is an other war coming up as to history always repeats itself, This time it will be the US defending all the small countries that China is steeling from, this time the US will be finally defending the right people and with the prays and hopes that China will finally meet the Venom of the United States as they so are in deserving of this fight as to the controlling factors of China against so many other countries in Might and in Products which are poison-est to our children, and so many products made not poorly just made is a way which is harmful and poorly to the fact of lasting for a few uses only wasting so much money all because China has no standards in their factories or labor,

Finally The time is on the horizon where china will be placed into its place and China's Navy will be destroyed, and you know those 2 million china has for an Armed force, well it is to bad doe their families because of China's arrogance, and we all await for this day to come very soon! This will come to a Head in 2016, You watch and see, It is to bad Japan lost so much to stop that war, it is also to bad that the US did not know the whole truth about china as Now we all can see through China and its greed, I also would bet China will lost more land then it cares to believe as in WWIII the surrounding countries will grow in Size putting China into its place for its greed and making so many people suffer.

The Truth is about to come out, Remember it is news papers that censer not the Historians Lets see this news service hide this statement as it most likely will!

CHINA LOST THAT WAR!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No, I was just highlight how tiresomely hypocritical China's every shifting position is.

It would be ridiculous if it was not so threatening.

I do, however, think Asia would have been in a far better state if it had been left under Japan's influence.

We would have avoid Mao's genocide, the Korean, VIetnamese and Cambodian war, the splitting apart of Korea, numerous murderous regimes such as Pol Pot and Suharto all of which are directly related to, sponsored by and exploited by the American hegemony.

Instead, the people of Asia would have been enjoy Japanese health, wealthy and standard of living.

Both the USA and China have an interest in portraying Japan as brutal, aggressive etc but the visibile evidence of Japanese society today contradicts all that.

You need to compare the differences in crime rates within American society and the quality of life in Chinese society with Japan's and ask which would have been a better end.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Ok, so you are not saying Japan invade China to save China from corruption and from the west. Ok, cool.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I quote Mao to highlight how hypocritical the Chinese position is.

First its leader criticises Japan for not killing enough Chinese; now its leaders Japan for killing too many Chinese.

What does it really want?

The same monopoly over killing Chinese people and other racial minorities that Mao enjoy to the extent of 70 million people?

China's propaganda war might work inside China where it has an Orwellian degree of control over its citizens. But it won't work in the international realm.

They'll just end up look like third world despots with a fan club of one, North Korea.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan urges China not to focus on 'unfortunate history'

Every country has aspects of its history which are unfortunate. The key is to embrace them, not deny them. Teach them, not whitewash them. Then, and only then, is it possible to move on

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Oh great. The fact that you even go as far as quoting Mao pretty much ruined your argument. Mao and his communist party, who are still ruling today which you claim of attempting to re-write history is even more corrupt than KMT. If I remember correctly, Mao thank Japan because it help him to defeat KMT, not because KMT is corrupt. You are not seriously thinking Japan try to liberate Asia/China from west. Here in SEA, no one think Japan try to liberate Asia.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There's no questioning of "feeling".

Historically, it was the victim of severely and specific discrimination.

Let's stick to the point though ...

Japan had just ended hereditary slavery in Korea, which effect over 40% of Koreans, a few years later it went on to propose a racial equality clause at the League of Nations.

A few vociferously racist white nations like the Australia of that time objected, but the vote was carried and it was agreed.

The US president then denied it because he was afraid of the effect it would have on the USA as his presidency depended on the support or racist, anti-human rihgts for coloreds, Southern Democrats.

No, that has no causal connection to the war between Chinese Nationalists and Japan but it has a considerable causal connection to what happened next.

The Communist Party is attempting to re-write history to make the Sino-Japanese war a war of Japan versus the Chinese people ... but it was not.

It was primarily a war between Japan and the Anglo-American supported Nationalists - who were no friends of the Chinese people.

As Mao stated on numerous ocassions, Japan did the China people a huge favor by riding China of the corrupt and inept Nationalists. Indeed, he even stated Japan did not go far enough killing them off.

Why were the ANglo-Americans supporting the KMT? A simple matter of 'divide and rule', arming the weaker party (China) in order to weaken and destroy the strong party (Japan).

Japan was fighting to remove Western Imperialist infuence from Asia and largely succeeded, although it had to accept defeat and occupation itself.

However, even after its surrender, many Japanese troops remained overseas training and support Asians to kick the Imperialists out and were successful.

Whites no longer rule Asia.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Two Asian bothers Japan and China should live in peace for the common good and not plying cat and mouse games with each others to impress world community using ridiculous statements.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ok, let me get this straight. Japan feel discriminated by the white and as a response, instead of working together with their fellow Asian like China to tackle racism, they decided to attack and commit war aggression on China. That just stupid.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The USA was already in the war before Pearl Harbor. The USA wanted and deliberately provoked the conflict in two ways, one being placing the fleet in Hawaii, the other lesser known one of sailing a lightly armed war ship into Japanese wars in the China Sea.

@talaraedokko

Japan to apologize. Has Japan really ever done so?

Yes, numerous times; e.g. personally to each surviving comfort woman/war time prostitute and right up to the Emperor.

The issue is done and dusted.

It's just part of the propaganda war to suggest that it has not, or if that does not work, to suggest that the apologies were not sincere.

Repeat ad nauseam.

@Hansaram

I was refering specifically to what the issue of racial equality was raised at the League of Nations and despite strong opposition of racist White nations (Australia perhaps being the worst as it had an vociferous "White Australia" policy), the league votaed in favor of it, however, the then US president who was chairing the meeting cast it aside in an outrageously undemocratic manner.

One of the reasons being was that the US was, at that time, an apartheid state and his party required the support of racist Southern states (Democrats mostly).

The slap in Japan's face - the only "non-White" member at that time - was a key turning point in history that led Japan to finally accept the openly racist nature of the world order. Into that equation, you must also add the openly racist discrimination shown to Japanese immigrants to the West Coast of America that Japan - which was previously a great admirer of USA values and achievements - was mortified by.

These are all key stepping stone to what happened next and without them, history would have been quite different.

China has no interest in "real history", only establishing its own very narrow and ridiculously revised politically expedient version of it.

Unfortuantely, many American fail to make the effort to understand the efforts Japan made to be fully accepted and the ramifications of it. Conflict could have been avoided but the powers that were saw it as being too beneficial and so pursued it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Back@Home:

Imagine an egg caught between the jaws of a vise. Now screw the jaws of that vise together. At some point the egg will burst.

Whose fault was it, the egg (for bursting), the vise, or the people screwing the vise grip together.

The USA was involved in the War long before Pearl Harbor. All the "Remember Harbor" stuff is just part of a cult like national myth that seeks to cast USA, Inc in its favored mode as herioc and blameless.

It was the inherit Pro-White racism of the the League of Nations under the American president's chairmainship that brought things forward to breaking point.

The Pacific War could easily have been avoided and Asia suffered far less had the USA allowed the racial equality clause in the League and it had upheld its international treaties with Japan.

Germany, Italy, Spain (White Nations, all!) and Japan dropped themselves from the League of Nations, the US didn't kick them out. The USA was never a member of the League, and the three Secretaries General were British, French, and Irish, in sequence.

Likewise, Japan went hog-wild on their own in East Asia, overextending themselves, and then attacking Pearl Harbor. None of it was at USA's invitation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sadly, that still appears to be true to this day. Until Americans are willing to accept the possibility that they have been subjected to brainwashing over these issue, they are not even ready to enter into the discussion of what actually happened. All they are doing is regurgitating the propaganda.

The baseless claim "Japan is a victim of America propaganda " sadly is a very common method to dismiss criticism and does not prove or validate anything.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Please don't come and say China and Korea can't stop asking Japan to apologize. Has Japan really ever done so? If they had there would be no reason for anyone to keep asking them to do so. Unfortunate history! I see more Unfortunate History down the road. Lots of uneasy minds out there!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Hansaram

America propaganda? Yeah right.

America propaganda? Yes, correct.

There's an old Cold War Joke in Russia that the only difference between the Russian people and the American people is that the Russian people knew they were being fed propaganda.

Sadly, that still appears to be true to this day. Until Americans are willing to accept the possibility that they have been subjected to brainwashing over these issue, they are not even ready to enter into the discussion of what actually happened. All they are doing is regurgitating the propaganda.

@turbotsat

That's an odd position to take,

Not really, it's quite a common position, from a non-American point of view.

Imagine an egg caught between the jaws of a vise. Now screw the jaws of that vise together. At some point the egg will burst.

Whose fault was it, the egg (for bursting), the vise, or the people screwing the vise grip together.

The USA was involved in the War long before Pearl Harbor. All the "Remember Harbor" stuff is just part of a cult like national myth that seeks to cast USA, Inc in its favored mode as herioc and blameless.

It was the inherit Pro-White racism of the the League of Nations under the American president's chairmainship that brought things forward to breaking point.

The Pacific War could easily have been avoided and Asia suffered far less had the USA allowed the racial equality clause in the League and it had upheld its international treaties with Japan.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Back@Home: Since the 1930s and 40s we've all suffered 80 years of propaganda to portray Japan as the aggressor and the USA as the victim. Many would argue that it is not quite a true picture and that it was deliberate American actions which provoked the situation into war.

That's an odd position to take, given Pearl Harbor, and the map of Japanese occupation of China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Sino-Japanese_War_WW2.png

Map showing the extent of Japanese control (red) in 1940

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Personally, I think such attitudes are a primary source of the trouble between the "mainstream" and the "right-wing". The mainstream thinks of its position as so mainstream they longer feel the need to be self-critical and check it for weaknesses or even defend its strength. Other positions are just "mokusatsu-ed".

By doing this, the mainstream is giving up its chance to win the minds of anyone that's not in its choir. They are good until a person sees an alternate theory. The person seeing that will recheck mainstream sources and find they are nolo contendere. He is left with the choice of believing the mainstream source on blind faith, or he can agree with the logic of the alternate source, which will be superior, because the mainstream source doesn't even try.

I'm not sure if right-winger count are growing, but if they are, it is for good reason, and it is not helped by people saying "Let's ban debate!"

In fact, even the Chinese are realizing they have to deal with the Japanese claims in some way for a more complete historiography. I don't see them yielding on Nanking any time soon, but if you check for example 七七事变 on the Chinese Wiki, you'd notice they at least included the Japanese version of the start of the fight, and if you fuse it with the Chinese claims while not being completely on the Chinese side, you'd at least get the impression that perhaps, just perhaps, the Japanese are right on this one.

So ironically, it is the "neutral" West that's displaying the most reactionary attitudes on this. And what if the west already done all those things you mention and still find Chinese claim the most reliable and correct one.

I forget to reply tot his in previous post. Does it ever occur to you that the west already research the alternate version and still think the mainstream one is more reliable? If they do want to address this alternate history to anyone, they are not going to waste their time convincing the right wingers. After all, those people are called the right winger for a good reason in the first place. Wasting their time in black van making loud noise that nobody care. Right winger are pretty much nationalists and no way would they accept their own wrong doing. Right winger themselves are never objective.

So you also do research on Chinese websites? Does all of you Japanese people know how to speak Chinese? Knowing Chinese characters help you to understand what Chinese language website is saying?

I can assure you that all across the world it is seen as a perpetual aggressor, and it most certainly did expand it's territory. I am talking about the America-Japan war where Japan is clearly the aggressor, not America war with other countries.

It's just American Imperialism used a different and arguably more clever model than, say, the old fashoined European model than Japan was following.

Since the 1930s and 40s we've all suffered 80 years of propaganda to portray Japan as the aggressor and the USA as the victim. Many would argue that it is not quite a true picture and that it was deliberate American actions which provoked the situation into war.

War does not start the moment the first bullet is fired.

It goes through a series of events, legal/diplomatic and economic, before it erupts into actual physical violence.

America propaganda? Yeah right. I don't think so. Pretty much the entire world that time except for Japan agree with America that Japan is the war aggressor. Don't forget, 42 out of 43 League of Nations against Japan further expansion into China. The only one country in League of Nations that support Japan expansion is Japan itself. So America decided to place embargo on Japan because Japan is indeed the war aggressor as agree by pretty much all the countries that time except for Japan itself.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What's the point of making the war sound more lyrical. Killing this millions is as immoral as that millions and what's the difference between chemical experimentalism and making people starve if they die anyway. You call it defense or aggression, either way the outcome is the same.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am sorry but the WIkipedia is not a reliable source of information as it is over run by activists and propagandists.

The American view of America is severely rose tinted.

I can assure you that all across the world it is seen as a perpetual aggressor, and it most certainly did expand it's territory.

It's just American Imperialism used a different and arguably more clever model than, say, the old fashoined European model than Japan was following.

Since the 1930s and 40s we've all suffered 80 years of propaganda to portray Japan as the aggressor and the USA as the victim. Many would argue that it is not quite a true picture and that it was deliberate American actions which provoked the situation into war.

War does not start the moment the first bullet is fired.

It goes through a series of events, legal/diplomatic and economic, before it erupts into actual physical violence.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Personally, I think such attitudes are a primary source of the trouble between the "mainstream" and the "right-wing". The mainstream thinks of its position as so mainstream they longer feel the need to be self-critical and check it for weaknesses or even defend its strength. Other positions are just "mokusatsu-ed".

By doing this, the mainstream is giving up its chance to win the minds of anyone that's not in its choir. They are good until a person sees an alternate theory. The person seeing that will recheck mainstream sources and find they are nolo contendere. He is left with the choice of believing the mainstream source on blind faith, or he can agree with the logic of the alternate source, which will be superior, because the mainstream source doesn't even try.

I'm not sure if right-winger count are growing, but if they are, it is for good reason, and it is not helped by people saying "Let's ban debate!"

In fact, even the Chinese are realizing they have to deal with the Japanese claims in some way for a more complete historiography. I don't see them yielding on Nanking any time soon, but if you check for example 七七事变 on the Chinese Wiki, you'd notice they at least included the Japanese version of the start of the fight, and if you fuse it with the Chinese claims while not being completely on the Chinese side, you'd at least get the impression that perhaps, just perhaps, the Japanese are right on this one.

So ironically, it is the "neutral" West that's displaying the most reactionary attitudes on this. And what if the west already done all those things you mention and still find Chinese claim the most reliable and correct one.

No, the expansion is after 1937, when China picked a fight. Unfortunately, by letting the Chinese blind them as to who picked it, the US did not correctly assess the situation.

The fact that Japan decided to expand it's territory alone is good enough proof Japan is the war aggressor. Let just assume China start fire first for the sake of argument, it still doesn't justify Japan for expanding it's troops and territory into China. Look at the US - Japan war for example. Japan is the one that attack Pearl Harbor first and lost to the US, but the US did not try to expand it's territory into Japan or annex Japan, thus US avoid being called war aggressor in this case. The US did not correct assess the situation wrongly but rather, US and the world have different logic and common sense from the Japanese. 42 out of 43 League of Nations against Japan expansion into China.

I agree but that's a thought only looking at the final result. If they manage to keep Manchukuo alive until 1950 or so, well, things would very likely have been different. Prescription is tried, because it works in international society.

Unfortunately,this is just speculation and no evidence to suggest it will happen that way. Had Japan keep Manchukuo alive until 1950 or longer, I doubt anyone would even recognize it as part of Japan.

JapanToday ate the underscores. Try searching using the words in Wikisource. When you see it, you'll see its total length is so short that a tiny detail like Takeshima could never have made it in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute#1965_Treaty_on_Basic_Relations

It says here that territorial dispute need to be settled in the future and both recognized each other claim.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@HansaramSEP. 06, 2015 - 09:30PM JST

Well, if they think the Chinese side one is more reliable to the point it become mainstream, certainly then it understandable and there's no need to state the reason for the reading to the general public.

Personally, I think such attitudes are a primary source of the trouble between the "mainstream" and the "right-wing". The mainstream thinks of its position as so mainstream they longer feel the need to be self-critical and check it for weaknesses or even defend its strength. Other positions are just "mokusatsu-ed".

By doing this, the mainstream is giving up its chance to win the minds of anyone that's not in its choir. They are good until a person sees an alternate theory. The person seeing that will recheck mainstream sources and find they are nolo contendere. He is left with the choice of believing the mainstream source on blind faith, or he can agree with the logic of the alternate source, which will be superior, because the mainstream source doesn't even try.

I'm not sure if right-winger count are growing, but if they are, it is for good reason, and it is not helped by people saying "Let's ban debate!"

In fact, even the Chinese are realizing they have to deal with the Japanese claims in some way for a more complete historiography. I don't see them yielding on Nanking any time soon, but if you check for example 七七事变 on the Chinese Wiki, you'd notice they at least included the Japanese version of the start of the fight, and if you fuse it with the Chinese claims while not being completely on the Chinese side, you'd at least get the impression that perhaps, just perhaps, the Japanese are right on this one.

So ironically, it is the "neutral" West that's displaying the most reactionary attitudes on this.

Yup, exactly. That is why the Hong Kong situation is not unequal truce for the Chinese and different from China-Japan truce.

The Chinese have always counted the treaties related to Hong Kong as unequal treaties. Unlike the ones with Japan, however, they seem to realize that their proposition for it to be struck out on that basis alone is indefensible internationally.

Continual expansion in China. Doesn't that mean Japan is the war aggressor even after the truce since they continue to expand into China.

No, the expansion is after 1937, when China picked a fight. Unfortunately, by letting the Chinese blind them as to who picked it, the US did not correctly assess the situation.

Except even in the future, no one still recognized it

I agree but that's a thought only looking at the final result. If they manage to keep Manchukuo alive until 1950 or so, well, things would very likely have been different. Prescription is tried, because it works in international society.

But if the scenario I mention really happen, Japan got no right to reclaim their lost territories right? If they did, Japan will be the war aggressor.

Yes. That's why good national defense is important. Takeshima says it all, doesn't it :-)

I can't view the wikipedia link you provide me here. What you mean by too short.

JapanToday ate the underscores. Try searching using the words in Wikisource. When you see it, you'll see its total length is so short that a tiny detail like Takeshima could never have made it in.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan urges China not to focus on 'unfortunate history'

It takes two, in opposing stances, to tango. Germany learned that lesson well. The old men in the Japanese government still think they can "win" the propaganda war. I got some bad news though. China was far from the only country in the world to celebrate Japan getting its richly deserved beat down in 1945. Even Britain did. And if Britain had been occupied by Japan during the war and suffered like China did for it, you can believe the atmosphere of the celebrations would have been much more similar.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@DonDon

Why else you think Japan has been receiving more negative impressions from the German ever since Abe takeover Japan.

Because the Chinese Communist Party has been working overtime with their propaganda campaign.

See; Xi’s history lessons

"The Communist Party is plundering history to justify its present-day ambitions"

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21660977-communist-party-plundering-history-justify-its-present-day-ambitions-xis-history

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

With the mentality that Kazuaki Shimazaki portray, Japan is not a peaceful country after all. Don't worry, there's always future new treaties/alliance that can overwrite old treaties( Potsdam Declaration). After all, we always need to move on from the past right? Russia and China should ask Japan to sign new treaty. Russia take Kuril Island while China take Senkaku/Diaoyu Island. Or maybe they can just do more and take more land from the Japanese. Japan is weak while China and Russia are strong. So it make sense for Japan to kow tow to China and Russia demand/treaties. Japan is doomed. China make the right move by militarizing itself to prepare against Japan's threat.

They should. But I find it strange that no such treaties are demanded while the one Russia seeks for requires them to relinquish the territories they stole. So perhaps Japan isn't doomed after all.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

If they are neutral, the least they will do is research both sides' positions and present both. Certainly, they can decide one side is more reliable, but they should still state the reasons why. An alternative, if they are writing it in a really short section, would be to present the lowest common denominator.

Well, if they think the Chinese side one is more reliable to the point it become mainstream, certainly then it understandable and there's no need to state the reason for the reading to the general public.

They did that when they realized without the part called Kowloon and the New Territories (which by treaty they have to return when the lease ended), Hong Kong is unsupportable. In any case, you will notice while they might be willing to return the islands, that's because they are "nice" and not because of any legal obligation.

Yup, exactly. That is why the Hong Kong situation is not unequal truce for the Chinese and different from China-Japan truce.

The set of embargoes placed on Japan was not after 1933, but in 1940-41 in response to the continual expansion in China and also in Indochina (even then, Americans are one-sided drinking the Chinese story, or at least they didn't want Japan to get so much China-pie). They are separate events.

Continual expansion in China. Doesn't that mean Japan is the war aggressor even after the truce since they continue to expand into China.

As far as Manchukuo is concerned, while they were not recognized in 1932, that's not a guarantee it won't be recognized in the future. Japan is counting on that (that whole "Jesus" thing actually represents the truth of international policy).

Except even in the future, no one still recognized it

You are obviously hoping I'll retreat rather than "eat a bullet", but such logic is international doctrine. That's why all countries must make efforts to prevent such a situation from taking place, and if they allow to happen, they have to think very hard before agreeing to any truces. Because the concept of "a deal is a deal" is one of the most age-old principles of mankind and nations, far predating any modern "humanitarianism" or rule of law concerns.

But if the scenario I mention really happen, Japan got no right to reclaim their lost territories right? If they did, Japan will be the war aggressor.

That treaty (https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/TreatyonBasicRelationsbetweenJapanandtheRepublicofKorea) is way too short for such a thing.

I can't view the wikipedia link you provide me here. What you mean by too short.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Hansaram at Sep. 06, 2015 - 06:53PM JST

They are neutral in my view.

If they are neutral, the least they will do is research both sides' positions and present both. Certainly, they can decide one side is more reliable, but they should still state the reasons why. An alternative, if they are writing it in a really short section, would be to present the lowest common denominator.

England set a time when to return Hong Kong to China.

They did that when they realized without the part called Kowloon and the New Territories (which by treaty they have to return when the lease ended), Hong Kong is unsupportable. In any case, you will notice while they might be willing to return the islands, that's because they are "nice" and not because of any legal obligation.

why they place embargo is because Japan is viewed as aggressor for attacking and stealing Manchuria regardless of whatever truce.

The set of embargoes placed on Japan was not after 1933, but in 1940-41 in response to the continual expansion in China and also in Indochina (even then, Americans are one-sided drinking the Chinese story, or at least they didn't want Japan to get so much China-pie). They are separate events.

As far as Manchukuo is concerned, while they were not recognized in 1932, that's not a guarantee it won't be recognized in the future. Japan is counting on that (that whole "Jesus" thing actually represents the truth of international policy).

conquer Okinawa, Senkaku and maybe Kyushu and after that create a truce through military might with Japan

You are obviously hoping I'll retreat rather than "eat a bullet", but such logic is international doctrine. That's why all countries must make efforts to prevent such a situation from taking place, and if they allow to happen, they have to think very hard before agreeing to any truces. Because the concept of "a deal is a deal" is one of the most age-old principles of mankind and nations, far predating any modern "humanitarianism" or rule of law concerns.

About the Takeshima, isn't the 1965 truce stated that the territorial dispute need to be settled in the future and both recognized each other claim?

That treaty (https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Basic_Relations_between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_Korea) is way too short for such a thing.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Then perhaps you should consider not putting 100% faith in Western sources that just parrot the Chinese ones :-)

I don't think the west parrot to the Chinese one especially with China threat in the rise. They are neutral in my view.

Yet Hong Kong was part of England until 1997. Thus, unequal treaties don't get voided just because they are subjectively or even objectively uneven.

You are correct that the LoN did not recognize Manchukuo. In fact, I said from the get go that I don't have big problems accepting Japan is the aggressor there. However, to link it directly to Pearl Harbor, ignoring every other event in a 10 year period is unobjective.

England set a time when to return Hong Kong to China.

Ignoring what? The reason why Japan attack Pearl Harbor is because of embargo place on Japan. Reason why they place embargo is because Japan is viewed as aggressor for attacking and stealing Manchuria regardless of whatever truce.

It won't be justified. But if China can attack Japan and arrange a truce, yes Japan would be the new aggressor if she attacks without due cause.

In fact, we don't even need to look at hypotheticals to see this working. It is this very principle that Korea relied on when she exploited a period when Japan did not even have a self-defence force to occupy Takeshima. Japan never agreed to it, but if Japan tried to use force to take it back after the SDF was established, people would probably consider Japan to be in the wrong, especially after the signing of the 1965 treaty.

Similarly, despite the Russophobia that surrounds the world today, if Japan tries to grab her "Northern Territories" back by force, she'd probably be seen as the aggressor too.

However, if for example Korea made a mistake and attacked a Japanese vessel, Japan would be "entitled" to a certain amount of retaliatory violence as self-defence, which will de facto (though perhaps not de jure) cover taking back that island and locking that state into a truce.

Well, that's what I been saying. If China attack Japan, conquer Okinawa, Senkaku and maybe Kyushu and after that create a truce through military might with Japan where Okinawa, Senkaku and Kyushu got annex as part of China, and if Japan attack China to reclaim their land, Japan will be the war aggressor according to your logic. Modern day China and Imperial Japan can use military force to make other countries do to their bidding.

About the Takeshima, isn't the 1965 truce stated that the territorial dispute need to be settled in the future and both recognized each other claim? I don't think such agreement can be found with the China-Japan truce in WW 2.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I don't read Chinese source since I can't read Chinese characters.

Then perhaps you should consider not putting 100% faith in Western sources that just parrot the Chinese ones :-)

I also don't see them saying China must follow it. But I do know League of Nation does not recognize Manchuko and Japan got hit by embargo and as a result, Japan is out of League of Nation and attack Pear Harbor. That pretty much tells a lot.

Yet Hong Kong was part of England until 1997. Thus, unequal treaties don't get voided just because they are subjectively or even objectively uneven.

You are correct that the LoN did not recognize Manchukuo. In fact, I said from the get go that I don't have big problems accepting Japan is the aggressor there. However, to link it directly to Pearl Harbor, ignoring every other event in a 10 year period is unobjective.

Yes, if China attack Japan today, China will be considered as aggressor just like how Japan is aggressor during the Sino-Japan war. And after modern China attack Japan and proven to be to tough for Japan to handle, China can also just make Japan enter truce just like what Imperial Japan did and all China action in conquering Japan will be justified at least according to your logic judging from your obsession with truce.

It won't be justified. But if China can attack Japan and arrange a truce, yes Japan would be the new aggressor if she attacks without due cause.

In fact, we don't even need to look at hypotheticals to see this working. It is this very principle that Korea relied on when she exploited a period when Japan did not even have a self-defence force to occupy Takeshima. Japan never agreed to it, but if Japan tried to use force to take it back after the SDF was established, people would probably consider Japan to be in the wrong, especially after the signing of the 1965 treaty.

Similarly, despite the Russophobia that surrounds the world today, if Japan tries to grab her "Northern Territories" back by force, she'd probably be seen as the aggressor too.

However, if for example Korea made a mistake and attacked a Japanese vessel, Japan would be "entitled" to a certain amount of retaliatory violence as self-defence, which will de facto (though perhaps not de jure) cover taking back that island and locking that state into a truce.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Here's what interests me - why do you put 100% faith in Chinese sources?

I don't read Chinese source since I can't read Chinese characters.

Actually, I very much mind unobjective history, which I very much suspect is happening with the grossly different receptivities (in fact, some say alternate histories should be banned outright - German style). I also think the clauses in the Treaty of Versailles, then the game of putting up a court and then sealing the judgments in the Treaty of San Francisco is pretty dumb and actually originates a lot of the pain we see today.

As for the "unequal treaties", while most Western countries are willing to admit by modern standards they were not very fair and constitute disproportionate violations of Chinese sovereignty, I don't see any of them actually say "Therefore, China can ignore them at will." And that's my point.

I also don't see them saying China must follow it. But I do know League of Nation does not recognize Manchuko and Japan got hit by embargo and as a result, Japan is out of League of Nation and attack Pear Harbor. That pretty much tells a lot.

Let me turn this in another direction. If China attacked Japan today, most of us will agree that despite whatever Japan did and did not do in WWII, China would be the aggressor. The argument of linking events in 1937-45, or 1928-45 to the present day to insist Japan is the aggressor will not be accepted (I hope, anyway).

In the same way, you can't link actions in 1931 to 1937. Is this hard, Hansaram?

Yes, if China attack Japan today, China will be considered as aggressor just like how Japan is aggressor during the Sino-Japan war. And after modern China attack Japan and proven to be to tough for Japan to handle, China can also just make Japan enter truce just like what Imperial Japan did and all China action in conquering Japan will be justified at least according to your logic judging from your obsession with truce.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@decibelSEP. 06, 2015 - 11:51AM JST

You seemed to be in deep denial

You can't have it both ways, decibel. Either we agree in Active Agent responsibility or we don't.

If we believe in Active Agent responsibility, the price your side must pay for that is that the Americans were ultimately the ones that chose to conduct mass bombings on Japan, a definitely State-supported, State-funded, State-commanded program. So Americans would be "directly responsible" for American bombings.

If we don't believe in Active Agent responsibility, but in First Punch responsibility, then you can get America off the hook (let's close our eyes to the economic sanctions...). However, then the responsibility of the deaths with China will be critically dependent on who fired the first shot. That would be China. Even a proportionality argument won't save her (as it might Japan, ironically) for the simple reason the Chinese chose to expand the incident in several stages.

I think the West can't keep changing its logics and doctrines when it suits them, that's all. Further, you seem to be in more denial than me, since you aren't even trying to rebutt my points.

@Hansaram SEP. 06, 2015 - 11:47AM JST

Why am I not surprised hearing it from the Japanese source.

Here's what interests me - why do you put 100% faith in Chinese sources?

Consider that you are fine with things like unequal treaties, then I guess you won't have problem with unobjective history right? They are the same as in the weaker/loser demand/claim is ignored.

Actually, I very much mind unobjective history, which I very much suspect is happening with the grossly different receptivities (in fact, some say alternate histories should be banned outright - German style). I also think the clauses in the Treaty of Versailles, then the game of putting up a court and then sealing the judgments in the Treaty of San Francisco is pretty dumb and actually originates a lot of the pain we see today.

As for the "unequal treaties", while most Western countries are willing to admit by modern standards they were not very fair and constitute disproportionate violations of Chinese sovereignty, I don't see any of them actually say "Therefore, China can ignore them at will." And that's my point.

So you are saying if modern day China and Russia did to Japan what Japan in the past did to China, using military strength to make other countries do to their bidding, there's nothing wrong with that? I guess you are fine with CCP taking over Tibet then.

Let me turn this in another direction. If China attacked Japan today, most of us will agree that despite whatever Japan did and did not do in WWII, China would be the aggressor. The argument of linking events in 1937-45, or 1928-45 to the present day to insist Japan is the aggressor will not be accepted (I hope, anyway).

In the same way, you can't link actions in 1931 to 1937. Is this hard, Hansaram?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki You seemed to be in deep denial and cannot accept the fact that the IJA and its leaders were barbaric and were directly resposnible for the millions of civilian casaulties in China and other neighboring countries. You also do not seem to understand why the current Japanese constitution is written by US Gen MacArthur and not by Tojo or Hirohito. As a matter of fact Japanese civilians suffered greatly too which was casued by their govenment's past militarisitc policies. PM Abe effort in distorting history of WW2 is directing Japan in the wrong path and history will repeat itself "UNFORTUNATELY".

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Of course the source is Japanese. Good historiography is not made only by listening to the story of one side, but that's what seemed to have happened in Sino-Japanese history. This is unobjective and unhealthy.

Why am I not surprised hearing it from the Japanese source. Consider that you are fine with things like unequal treaties, then I guess you won't have problem with unobjective history right? They are the same as in the weaker/loser demand/claim is ignored.

So you are saying if modern day China and Russia did to Japan what Japan in the past did to China, using military strength to make other countries do to their bidding, there's nothing wrong with that? I guess you are fine with CCP taking over Tibet then.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Perhaps they should since they missed out on the Treaty of Peace which based on you and Hansaram's definition, it's an unequal treaty.

With the mentality that Kazuaki Shimazaki portray, Japan is not a peaceful country after all. Don't worry, there's always future new treaties/alliance that can overwrite old treaties( Potsdam Declaration). After all, we always need to move on from the past right? Russia and China should ask Japan to sign new treaty. Russia take Kuril Island while China take Senkaku/Diaoyu Island. Or maybe they can just do more and take more land from the Japanese. Japan is weak while China and Russia are strong. So it make sense for Japan to kow tow to China and Russia demand/treaties. Japan is doomed. China make the right move by militarizing itself to prepare against Japan's threat.

@fw360 Why else you think Japan has been receiving more negative impressions from the German ever since Abe takeover Japan. http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Germany-dismayed-by-Japan-s-inability-to-move-on

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@HansaramSEP. 06, 2015 - 02:22AM JST

Source for this claim please? Preferably not Japanese source.

Of course the source is Japanese. Good historiography is not made only by listening to the story of one side, but that's what seemed to have happened in Sino-Japanese history. This is unobjective and unhealthy.

Japan is stronger and use that position to make China into submitting to their demand.

What else do you do with strength? I can name any number of treaties in history where force was used. So, should Russia have free reign to ignore INF because America got her way by installing missiles to threaten Moscow (gee, how ... uh ... Japanese :-) ), or the CFE treaty should never have been valid because it took advantage of Russian economic weakness.

And of course, Japan should have been free to ignore any provision of San Francisco, because there are not many inferior positions to when your country is still occupied...

How about if modern day China flex it muscle towards Japan even further and make Japan sign treaties according to what China want.

Isn't that what China is doing ... slowly, but it is happening. You do know what all those constant demands to acknowledge there's a dispute over the Senkaku islands is all about. Or all those "patrols" are all about.

But a deal is a deal, and that's why disadvantaged countries don't sign deals, even at great cost because once you sign a deal, you don't get out of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

@DonDonSEP. 06, 2015 - 02:54AM JST

If that had happened, China and Russia would have been aggressors. However, if they were able to get the Japanese to sign a treaty, that treaty will still have been valid.

Which is why the Japanese want to keep the alliance with the US at all costs, because it is the only way (other than turning themselves into a fortress) they can keep themselves from having to sign such treaties. Such is the way of the world. Thanks to America, the 1st world had allowed themselves to forget this somewhat for 70 years, but the world is still hostile outside the magical forcefield.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It is incredible that the current Japanese government can shamelessly say it is “disappointed” (by Suga) and ask China to “forget the unfortunate history” (by Abe).

1) Given the fact Abe has refused to “come clean” or totally apologize on the WW2 Fascist Japan atrocities in Asia (like what the post-war Germany did), his government has zero right to complain about what went in the WW2 V-day ceremony in Beijing. 2) By turning down the invitation and decided to send no representative (not even its ambassador in Beijing), the current Japanese government has lost a great opportunity to disconnect itself from the Fascist Japan (like Germany did) and denounce the misdeeds of the Imperial Japan. By this kind of stupidity, it continues to expose itself as admirer of its dark Fascist history… thus promotes the suspicion of its national militaristic character by the people in Asia, especially in China and Korea.

Japan, you need to do the right thing… to get the forgiveness of people in Asia. Can you come clean publically by deeds and words? (PRC, via Xi JinPing’s comment, stated clearly it will never seek hegemony… it does not matter whether you believe it or not, at least he stated that publicly.)

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I guess China and Russia should just have military alliance and goes to war against Japan and make Japan sign unequal treaties. Russia take the northern part of Japan while China take southern part of Japan. Good thing Putin visit China military parade to improve relation between those two countries. Putin even called out Japan on glorifying it's war criminal.

Perhaps they should since they missed out on the Treaty of Peace which based on you and Hansaram's definition, it's an unequal treaty.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Here are the facts of life. There are extremely few agreements in the world where the two sides are of equal strength, and because of this, the lines the agreement fall on will depend on the relative strength of the two sides. But a deal is still a deal. The concept of the "unequal treaty" really is only in China, and nevertheless is not an excuse to not follow it.

I guess China and Russia should just have military alliance and goes to war against Japan and make Japan sign unequal treaties. Russia take the northern part of Japan while China take southern part of Japan. Good thing Putin visit China military parade to improve relation between those two countries. Putin even called out Japan on glorifying it's war criminal.

The Russian leader also highlighted the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in the wake of recent remarks by Japanese leaders on the topic that drew heat from some quarters. http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/putin-calls-act-to-glorify-war-criminals-flouting-of-tokyo-tribunal

Even better, China and Russia have nuclear weapon while Japan don't. Japan is screwed. When China takeover Japan,China is not war aggressor but it only because Japan is weak. Oh, even China occupation on Tibet, China is not war aggressor but it because Tibet lost war. But then again, maybe China and Russia don't need military alliance. Japan are full of herbivore and virgin male, with it's low birth rate, it just a matter of time before Japan given it's share to China.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Japanese version of what? The Lytton report? I read it in English before writing the above. I'm referring to Triring post, not yours.

In this one, the Chinese can only blame themselves for having a Boxer Rebellion and then losing. So you are saying because Chinese is weak and therefore, Japan has the right to occupy China? In that case, if modern day China go war to Japan and conquer Japan, then their rule is justify and China is not war aggressor then. China occupation on Tibet is not China fault but Tibet for being weak. That just how pathetic your logic is. Sorry, but Japan is still the war aggressor for the entire thing.

Blackmail generally involves using threats of exposure. Here are the facts of life. There are extremely few agreements in the world where the two sides are of equal strength, and because of this, the lines the agreement fall on will depend on the relative strength of the two sides. But a deal is still a deal. The concept of the "unequal treaty" really is only in China, and nevertheless is not an excuse to not follow it.

Blackmail is exactly what the Japanese did. Japan is stronger and use that position to make China into submitting to their demand. There's no reason to follow that treaty and China action is justified. Your logic and that is you use because Japan is stronger, therefore, it make sense to everyone to listen to them. How about if modern day China flex it muscle towards Japan even further and make Japan sign treaties according to what China want.

From the Japanese side, what seemed to have gotten Cai Gongshi killed was that some Chinese troops chose to see fit to fire from the same building he happened to be in. Needless to say, the building was immediately counterattacked and searched. Apparently, he was taken as a plainclothes soldier and killed. As for the whole slicing nose and ears part, that was denied, and indeed may have been a tack on by the Chinese - after all, their people sliced up some Japanese civvies so badly one of the photos from that time became a "Nanking photo", and this may have been an attempt to shove some blame back onto the Japanese.

As for those Japanese killed, in the sake of fairness, there have been claims (even from that time) they are opium sellers and their killers were not from the Army. OK, but sellers must have buyers. Further, they were killed just as the Chinese Army showed up. If we accept the claim that these guys are always hated, it would be rather coincidental for them to decide to attack just as more government authority just showed at the door. It would be like you deciding to execute the killing of your hated victim just as the police forces in your region was doubled.

Source for this claim please? Preferably not Japanese source.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

HansaramSEP. 05, 2015 - 11:07PM JST

And how do we know Japanese version is accurate one? We don't even know any Chinese involvement in ENGLISH wiki.

Japanese version of what? The Lytton report? I read it in English before writing the above.

More important, why is foreigners such as Japanese forces occupy itself in Jinan in the first place?No need to waste time trying to distort history and justify IJA. Placing Japanese soldiers in Chinese land of course will invite provocation.

In this one, the Chinese can only blame themselves for having a Boxer Rebellion and then losing.

And just because Japan doesn't know Cai Gongshi is not emissary, that justify Japan slice off his nose and ears, and to gouge out his eyes and tongue.

So, if 1931 doesn't work, it's now 1928? By the end of next week, we'd be back in 1895.

From the Japanese side, what seemed to have gotten Cai Gongshi killed was that some Chinese troops chose to see fit to fire from the same building he happened to be in. Needless to say, the building was immediately counterattacked and searched. Apparently, he was taken as a plainclothes soldier and killed. As for the whole slicing nose and ears part, that was denied, and indeed may have been a tack on by the Chinese - after all, their people sliced up some Japanese civvies so badly one of the photos from that time became a "Nanking photo", and this may have been an attempt to shove some blame back onto the Japanese.

As for those Japanese killed, in the sake of fairness, there have been claims (even from that time) they are opium sellers and their killers were not from the Army. OK, but sellers must have buyers. Further, they were killed just as the Chinese Army showed up. If we accept the claim that these guys are always hated, it would be rather coincidental for them to decide to attack just as more government authority just showed at the door. It would be like you deciding to execute the killing of your hated victim just as the police forces in your region was doubled.

No, it doesn't this kind of truce is nothing more FORCE agreement and not a sincere agreement. We have a word for it which we call as 'blackmail'. Blackmail the weaker people into agreeing with him.

Blackmail generally involves using threats of exposure.

Here are the facts of life. There are extremely few agreements in the world where the two sides are of equal strength, and because of this, the lines the agreement fall on will depend on the relative strength of the two sides. But a deal is still a deal. The concept of the "unequal treaty" really is only in China, and nevertheless is not an excuse to not follow it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

"China", in essence, did not exist. It was already divided and not in a federal form.

How does that equate Japan given it's share?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Seiharinokaze

In what way that Great Britain and China undermined them to the point Japan invade China?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@ Hansaram

No one give Japan it's share in China. Japan invade China and grab it.

No, go back to the history books. It was given German territorial concessions in China.

"China", in essence, did not exist. It was already divided and not in a federal form.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So what is the problem then? No one describe any of their atrocities as collateral damage then.

Perhaps your definition of atrocity differs from mine.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

From Wikipedia on John Van Antwerp MacMurray (1881–1960) an American diplomat best known as one of the leading China experts in the U.S. government:

The conventional wisdom held that Japan was the unprovoked aggressor in the brewing conflict with China. However, MacMurray posited that Chinese and American policies were partly to blame for Japan’s actions; whereas Japan had closely adhered to the treaties and agreements brokered during the Washington Disarmament Conference, the United States, Great Britain and China frequently undermined them. Up until the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the "Japanese Government ... was endeavoring in unimpeachable good faith to live up to its undertakings", wrote MacMurray. "The issue of success or failure for the policies evolved at the Washington Conference was actually in the hands of China herself, of Great Britain, and of the United States."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Comprehension problem. No countries describe the Holocaust as collateral damage. It was unprecedented.

So what is the problem then? No one describe any of their atrocities as collateral damage then.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Which means no countries describe it atrocities as collateral damage.

Comprehension problem. No countries describe the Holocaust as collateral damage. It was unprecedented.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

That's rich coming from someone that claims legitimacy over the occupation of Tibet and East Turkestan which is still under seize today.

Except, I don't recognize Tibet and East Turkestan as part of China. Yes, I consider Japan a war aggressor but at the same time, I support Tibet and Xinjiang independence. Does that sound shocking to you? You think everyone who think Japan is war aggressor is pro China. Come on, be mature.

Yep. It was unprecedented as their Chancellor stated in 1985.

Which means no countries describe it atrocities as collateral damage.

@Back@home No one give Japan it's share in China. Japan invade China and grab it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Didn't the German clearly describe Holocaust as atrocity?

Yep. It was unprecedented as their Chancellor stated in 1985.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@Hansaram

No, Hansaram, Japan wa given it's share in China and was then forced by the instability of the region to act to protect its lawfully acquired assets. Assets it acquired for fighting Germany on the side of the US and UK.

The key to understanding what happened next is understanding the reason why Japan was forced to make a diametric switch of allegiances.

I'm starting to think "unfortunate here really refers to the audacious Communist Party historical revision

The Economist published an editorial on just this. It's a fairly august magazine and nails it in one.

Xi’s history lessons

The Communist Party is plundering history to justify its present-day ambitions

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21660977-communist-party-plundering-history-justify-its-present-day-ambitions-xis-history

China’s demonisation of Japan is not only unfair; it is also risky. Governments that stoke up nationalist animosity cannot always control it ... many Asians worry that China’s ambitions set it on a collision course with the superpower and the smaller nations that shelter under its security umbrella.

How much better it would be if China sought regional leadership not on the basis of the past, but on how constructive its behaviour is today

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Long story short, Japan invade other country, making Japan the aggresor.

That's rich coming from someone that claims legitimacy over the occupation of Tibet and East Turkestan which is still under seize today.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Not really. It's been done by other countries before and after. Heck. They don't even describe it as an atrocity but use the term "collateral damage".

Didn't the German clearly describe Holocaust as atrocity?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And Japan atrocities is Japan alone.. Japan should ban it's own people, or at least it's own politician from denying Japan war atrocities.

Not really. It's been done by other countries before and after. Heck. They don't even describe it as an atrocity but use the term "collateral damage".

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Simple, because China was weak and was occupied by many nations, that is why. If you want the details here is a paragraph in Japanese.

Basically the Qingdao–Jinan Railway was loaned to Japan and many mineral mines were jointly operated around the line so the Japanese army was sent to ensure security and protect of Japanese interest in the Shandong region.

Long story short, Japan invade other country, making Japan the aggresor.

Like I said, the atrocity like Holocaust is Germany alone. It's unprecedented as Weizsäcker stated in 1985. That's why certain countries chose to have a law to outlaw the denial.

And Japan atrocities is Japan alone.. Japan should ban it's own people, or at least it's own politician from denying Japan war atrocities.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Did you click the link? There's more than 6. Only 6 is named in Japan Today as example. It tiresome to name every single one of them.

Like I said, it's not applicable to Japan other than the fact that today, they had a memorial service for Chiune Sugihara in Lithuania.

The point is, Japan should follow German and most other countries in dealing with Japan war atrocities denier

Like I said, the atrocity like Holocaust is Germany alone. It's unprecedented as Weizsäcker stated in 1985. That's why certain countries chose to have a law to outlaw the denial.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

HansaramSep. 05, 2015 - 11:07PM JST

More important, why is foreigners such as Japanese forces occupy itself in Jinan in the first place?No need to waste time trying to distort history and justify IJA. Placing Japanese soldiers in Chinese land of course will invite provocation.

Simple, because China was weak and was occupied by many nations, that is why. If you want the details here is a paragraph in Japanese.

膠済鉄道は日本の借款鉄道であり、同鉄道沿線の鉱山は日中合弁会社が経営するなど、山東省には日本の権益も存在した

Basically the Qingdao–Jinan Railway was loaned to Japan and many mineral mines were jointly operated around the line so the Japanese army was sent to ensure security and protect of Japanese interest in the Shandong region.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

This kind of attitude is never accepted by the global society and loses all credibility as a reliable partner.

You sure about that? Last time I check the League of Nations doesn't even recognize Japan occupation on Manchuria and it's the Japanese who got hit by embargo.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

And just because Japan doesn't know Cai Gongshi is not emissary, that justify Japan slice off his nose and ears, and to gouge out his eyes and tongue.

@Kazuaki Shimazaki No, it doesn't this kind of truce is nothing more FORCE agreement and not a sincere agreement. We have a word for it which we call as 'blackmail'. Blackmail the weaker people into agreeing with him.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Convention of Peking is also an unequal treaties and Japan is not part of Convention of Peking.

So any and all treaties that are not preferable is not worth respecting and that can be neglected even though the nation signed it. This kind of attitude is never accepted by the global society and loses all credibility as a reliable partner.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

And how do we know Japanese version is accurate one? We don't even know any Chinese involvement in ENGLISH wiki.

More important, why is foreigners such as Japanese forces occupy itself in Jinan in the first place?No need to waste time trying to distort history and justify IJA. Placing Japanese soldiers in Chinese land of course will invite provocation.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@moilolSEP. 05, 2015 - 06:06PM JST

Can you explained the Mukden Incident ? Even the Yūshūkan museum, places the blame on members of the Japanese Kwangtung Army. And how can you explained the League of Nations refused to acknowledge Manchukuo as an independent nation?

I am not sure how I can explain this any better, but let's review what I wrote:

I don't mind so much the concept of Japan being the aggressor on the Manchurian problem

My beef is with Hansaram's assertion that this equates to:

Japan is indeed the war aggressor during WW 2 for attacking Manchuria first.

Please read italicized part. If ever since that they kept fighting non-stop (already untrue), then at that point Japan would have been the aggressor for the Sino-Japanese War, and even that is not a direct link to being being the aggressor for WWII.

Is this a difficult concept? On Day 1, I grab your Toy and punch you in the face when you try to get it back. I can say something about all the snarky remarks you've been saying about me (anti-Japanese actions by the Chinese is a point acknowledged by the Lytton report that preceded the League's resolution), but overall I am the aggressor. That's fine.

However, let's say we make up sufficiently to hammer out an uneasy truce. It might favor me, because I'm a better fighter and you don't have any friends that would actually stand up for you, but at least you agreed to the truce.

Then on Day 2, you punch my little sister (you are not even trying to grab your toy back), and we get into a fight. Now, while you can make an argument that what happened in Day 1 is a distant contribution to your decision to punch my little sister on Day 2, it would be pretty absurd to claim I'm the aggressor for that, let alone any fights that happened afterwards, based on Day 1.

@decibelSEP. 05, 2015 - 07:37PM JST

Perhaps you can start by actually rebutting my points rather than just writing these blanket statements.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

HansaramSep. 05, 2015 - 07:21PM JST

Which side started the Jinan incident?

I also love how Chinese propaganda is alive and well reading Wiki;

On May 7, Gen. Fukuda issued a five-point set of demands so onerous that the Chinese would have no choice but to refuse, with a 12-hour deadline. He refused to release the negotiators, including Cai Gongshi (蔡公時) and 16 others in his team. When commissioner Cai protested in Japanese, Japanese officers placed an order to slice off his nose and ears, and to gouge out his eyes and tongue. Sixteen other members of his negotiation team were also stripped naked, recklessly whipped, dragged to the back lawn and slaughtered by machine guns on the same day. Having received reinforcements and supplies, the Japanese by 11 May, after fierce fighting, pushed Chinese troops from the area and inflicted thousands of casualties[7] and killed over 2000 Chinese civilians.

In the Japanese version it's written as below;

済南領事館が事件に直接関係した歩兵第47連隊第6中隊の木場大尉より聴取したところによると、「3日朝の衝突で歩兵第47連隊第6中隊が交渉公署建物の前に散開して敵に応戦中、同建物三階より狙撃され、日本兵2名が死亡したため、応射し、敵の射撃を沈黙させた。午後7時過ぎ、敵の残兵掃討のため木場大尉が第二小隊を指揮して交渉公署建物を捜索中、突然地下室に潜伏していた便衣隊らしき者から射撃をうけたため、直ちに突入、全員十六名を射殺あるいは刺殺した。虐殺は絶対に否認し、かかる行為をなす暇もなく、また銃剣は耳鼻を削ぐには不適当にしてほとんど不可能である、ということである。同建物三階には、小銃・軍刀及び小銃弾二百発、地下室には軍帽15、軍服20、内空薬莢などが散乱していた。蔡公時の交渉員任命については日本側に正式通知はなかった。支那側は、たまたま同建物が一時的に交渉公署に当てられていたこと、交渉員の蔡が文官であったことを唯一の材料として事件を、日本軍は済南交渉公署を襲い、新任の交渉員・蔡公時ら十六人を耳鼻などを銃剣で切り落として虐殺した、「外交官虐殺事件」として喧伝した」としている。

The report states that on the morning of the 3rd, two IJA troops were shot by snipers from the third floor of the negotiation office building in which the troops returned fire and went into the building after the shooting had dissipated a little after seven PM to initiate a mop up operation. During the search they were ambushed by plain clothed troops that came out of the basement in which the troops returned fire shooting all 16 men.On the third floor they found 15 military hats 20 uniforms side arms, military swords and 200 bullets. Japan had never received any notice of Cai Gongshi being an emissary. The Chinese used this to spread propaganda that the IJA troops had attacked massacred emissaries. Like what we see above written in Wiki English.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki, I see you try to distort the facts regarding the IJA invasion in WW2 just like PM Abe. As the invader and instigator of the war, the IJA and its leaders cannot escape from the full responsibility of the 20-30 million deaths in China. Actually they are also responsible for the deaths of the Japanese civilans due to their barbaric militaristic policies and actions to other countries. It is absolutely dispicable to blame the Chinese and other victims countries did it to themsleves in WW2 and IJA is not responsible. That's exactly why the current Japanese constitution is written by the americans simply becuase there are still people like PM Abe and yoursefl who cannot understand what is right or wrong and still persistently try to justify the serious crimes against humanity is acceptable.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki What does war aggressor mean to you? My understanding is that war aggressor mean country that started war first and Japan indeed started war first in Manchuria so the truce or not, it doesn't change the fact that Japan is the invader.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

kazuaki,

Can you explained the Mukden Incident ? Even the Yūshūkan museum, places the blame on members of the Japanese Kwangtung Army. And how can you explained the League of Nations refused to acknowledge Manchukuo as an independent nation?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

There is link. War aggressor mean people who first launch attack/war. That's what it mean to be aggressor. Who lost the war is not the issues here.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Hansaram, I take a more academic slant. Conventional history only has itself to blame if it isn't strong enough and gets bent by competitors. If anything, censorship is the shortcut towards history warpage. As for hate, I'd say more hate results from certain ideas being repressed not in a fair fight but by fiat of law and dogma.

how does this relate to what I said.

You said Japan is the aggressor in WWII thanks to Manchuria. My point is that there is no real link between the two. In essence, China lost a war and signed a truce. This should cut off the direct connectivity.

I'll also point out that technically, Manchukuo is not Japan. Thus, the point that no Chinese recognize Manchuria as Japanese is irrevelant.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No, the right of Manchuria is not. Non of the treaties justify Japan rule on Manchuria. No Chinese that time acknowledge Manchuria as part of Japan. Convention of Peking is also an unequal treaties and Japan is not part of Convention of Peking. Convention of Peking did not says that all Manchuria is part of Russia, but rather, part of outer Manchuria.Let me guess, your logic is that the treaties agree part of Manchuria is agreed to belong to the Russia and due to Russia - Japan war, Japan become rightful owner of Manchuria? Something like that? This logic is so wrong because regardless of which treaties, Manchuria belong to neither Japan nor Russia. By that logic, Tibet is the rightfully belong to China then. But do you realize that later on, KMT manage to regain control on Manchuria. When Japan launch war aggression on Manchuria, they goes war against KMT and not the Russia. The Chinese already reclaim back it's land Manchuria just like how it should be before Japan launch another war expedition in Manchuria. Also, I think you are confuse between World War 2 and World War 1.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

HansaramSep. 05, 2015 - 02:25PM JST

I guess you haven't heard of the Potsdam Declaration either. Here is how the northern territories are defined within the declaration;

that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine," as had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.

So no the Russians do not have any legitimate sovereign territorial rights to the Northern territories and are illegally occupying them.

The rights to parts of Manchuria was also legal under various treaties.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Triring

Manchuria belong to neither Russia and Japan but the Chinese. By your logic then Russia is the rightful owner for Kuril Island where Japan lost it's influence.

I clicked it. Still very far from most. More importantly, it is a horrible idea. I think all ideas, including the Holocaust, must be able to stand on their own merits, and not have to be defended by an anti-Holocaust denial law.

The entire European Union does make those law. Asia should do the same too. No,it's not a bad idea but it's a good idea as it prevent people from distorting history. Denying any form of war crime is nothing more than incitement to hatred against segments of the population. These law must be implement in Asia and especially towards politician and ex politician so that people like Ishihara will not make stupid comments that tarnish Japan image or cause tension among countries.

So, unable to talk about 1937, we go to 1931? I don't mind so much the concept of Japan being the aggressor on the Manchurian problem, On the other hand, a truce was indeed signed and that should have disconnected it from future events, so the linkage to WWII, or even the Sino Japanese War is weak.

And how does this relate to what I said.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

HansaramSEP. 05, 2015 - 12:35PM JST

Did you click the link? There's more than 6. Only 6 is named in Japan Today as example. It tiresome to name every single one of them.

I clicked it. Still very far from most. More importantly, it is a horrible idea. I think all ideas, including the Holocaust, must be able to stand on their own merits, and not have to be defended by an anti-Holocaust denial law.

Japan is indeed the war aggressor during WW 2 for attacking Manchuria first. The Manchuria territory do not belong to them in the first place. There is obvious attempt by the Japanese to steal the land Manchuria from the Chinese and Manchu when Imperial Japan try to change the demographic of Manchuria by sending their own Japanese citizen there.

So, unable to talk about 1937, we go to 1931? I don't mind so much the concept of Japan being the aggressor on the Manchurian problem, On the other hand, a truce was indeed signed and that should have disconnected it from future events, so the linkage to WWII, or even the Sino Japanese War is weak.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

HansaramSep. 05, 2015 - 12:35PM JST

I suggest you read some history books concerning Machuria since Manchuria was part of Russia due to the Treaty of Aigun and Convention of Peking overriding the Treaty of Nerchinsk. Japan gained access to Machuria through the Ruso Japan war and WW1. The most devastating blow would be the Sino-Soviet conflict in which china lost all her influnce in the region.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

That's six. Still not even close to being "most countries in the world".

Did you click the link? There's more than 6. Only 6 is named in Japan Today as example. It tiresome to name every single one of them.

As Pukey stated, the Jewish Holocaust is irrelevant to Japan.

The point is, Japan should follow German and most other countries in dealing with Japan war atrocities denier.

Japan is indeed the war aggressor during WW 2 for attacking Manchuria first. The Manchuria territory do not belong to them in the first place. There is obvious attempt by the Japanese to steal the land Manchuria from the Chinese and Manchu when Imperial Japan try to change the demographic of Manchuria by sending their own Japanese citizen there.

Japan lost sovereign territorial rights through war for Kuril Island. Kuril Island is objectively belong to the Russian.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Asian rulers including Japan's, have no history offering soulful remorse for their own or predecessors' wrong doings. In their mind they deliver the mandate from the heaven. Bad sh*t can happen, like being stricken by lightening, it's "unfortunate" but requires no apology not to mention repentance, since it's the will of "heaven".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@turbotsatSEP. 05, 2015 - 01:06AM JST

Really? Look at all the whining Japan's doing over the Kuriles, little islands you couldn't get even 1 percent of the Japanese population to visit in normal circumstances, let alone inhabit, they can in no way compare to a military position such as Wanping 10 miles (or 10 km) outside the national capital. Any "understanding" there?

Nigelboy did NOT say they'll necessarily be happy. But they will understand that unhappiness does not equate a justification for violence.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Do you really know your HISTORY?, Qing Dynasty are Manchurian, they came from Manchuria.

Doesn't matter since they lost sovereign territorial rights through war.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@decibelSEP. 05, 2015 - 09:26AM JST

Actually, more of those died to starvation, Chiang flooding the Yellow River ... etc but never mind. They died in war, that's indisputable. My point which you are not even trying to fight is - this war was actually started by hothead Chinese.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Are Japanese politicians allowed to deny WW2 atrocities, Unit 731, rape of Nanking? Yes. Are they allowed to go the Yasukuni with it's revisionist museum adjacent? Yes. You were saying?

As many have countered you on various other similar articles, many Japanese have various interpretations of those historical events. There are those within that also agree to the over blown propaganda version of such events.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Good. No more lame Germany comparisons for a change.

Are Japanese politicians allowed to deny WW2 atrocities, Unit 731, rape of Nanking? Yes. Are they allowed to go the Yasukuni with it's revisionist museum adjacent? Yes. You were saying?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki ......Second, N million Chinese died because they, as a collective, decided to pick a fight with the Japanese they cannot win.................. Kazuaki Shimazaki, you are dead wrong. Majority of the 20-30 million Chinese casulties were civilians who were bayonetted and buried alive in pits; women and girls raped and killed. Wake up and get your facts straight instead of justifying the crimes against humanity committed by the IJA 1937-1945.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Unprecedented, yes. Are German politicians allowed to deny it? No. Is there the equivalent of Yasukuni shrine in Berlin? No. I think Japan isn't in a position to give historical advice

Good. No more lame Germany comparisons for a change.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

What you try to do was to equate Germany with Japan but those comparisons are weak. The Holocaust is "unprecedented in history"-Weizsäcker 1985. This is Germans alone.

Unprecedented, yes. Are German politicians allowed to deny it? No. Is there the equivalent of Yasukuni shrine in Berlin? No. I think Japan isn't in a position to give historical advice

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Tell that to the victims of unit 731.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Japan caused 10-15M people in Asia to die, but they do not teach this in schools. Government officials deny it and media outlets are allowed to print it. THAT is the issue. I apologize for not being 100% literal as it related to Japan.

You don't even know what is taught in Japanese schools.

What you try to do was to equate Germany with Japan but those comparisons are weak. The Holocaust is "unprecedented in history"-Weizsäcker 1985. This is Germans alone.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Nigelboy, you miss the point completely.

As Pukey stated, the Jewish Holocaust is irrelevant to Japan.

True, but Germany and local neighbors do not play it down or dismiss it.

Japan caused 10-15M people in Asia to die, but they do not teach this in schools. Government officials deny it and media outlets are allowed to print it. THAT is the issue. I apologize for not being 100% literal as it related to Japan.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Manchuria was out side of the territorial borders of Qing dynasty according to this map of Russia.<

Do you really know your HISTORY?, Qing Dynasty are Manchurian, they came from Manchuria.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

In essence Japan didn't invade Manchuria, it was handed over by the Soviets

That's correct. It was given what was already German territory.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So proceeding to take over Manchuria and most of the populated Chinese areas was also defending China against itself, or the evil white people?

Manchuria was out side of the territorial borders of Qing dynasty according to this map of Russia.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Subdivisions_of_the_Russian_Empire_in_1914.svg

ROC lost to the Soviets in the 1929 border skirmish and lost claim to the region.

Japan gained authority to the Manchurian Railway through the northern Manchuria railroad provision treaty between the Soviet Union and Japan in 1935 and Japan had a mandate to protect Japanese territory and assets. In essence Japan didn't invade Manchuria, it was handed over by the Soviets.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Who says any of them were right to be there, except people stuck in the 30's?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Defending what? China against itself? So proceeding to take over Manchuria and most of the populated Chinese areas was also defending China against itself, or the evil white people?

Japanese interests and Japanese people in China.

British, U.S., France and Italy had forces in China as well.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Defending what? China against itself? So proceeding to take over Manchuria and most of the populated Chinese areas was also defending China against itself, or the evil white people?

Such good boys! Medals all around!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Really? Look at all the whining Japan's doing over the Kuriles, little islands you couldn't get even 1 percent of the Japanese population to visit in normal circumstances, let alone inhabit, they can in no way compare to a military position such as Wanping 10 miles (or 10 km) outside the national capital. Any "understanding" there?

????? How Northern Territories were taken by then Soviet Forces are explained.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/overview.html

The positioning of the Japanese troops were pursuant to the Boxer Protocol earmarked toward defense in Tiajin.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Why? They would certainly try to understand how and why China would be there in the first place.

Really? Look at all the whining Japan's doing over the Kuriles, little islands you couldn't get even 1 percent of the Japanese population to visit in normal circumstances, let alone inhabit, they can in no way compare to a military position such as Wanping 10 miles (or 10 km) outside the national capital. Any "understanding" there?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If positions had been reversed and hostilities had started with Chinese garrison based in Chiba, Japanese would be like:

Why? They would certainly try to understand how and why China would be there in the first place.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Simple English version:

Japan (Suga): Oops, China! My bad! I mean, Grandpa's! Get over it, yoes!

If positions had been reversed and hostilities had started with Chinese garrison based in Chiba, Japanese would be like:

What were China doing in Chiba in the first place!?!? We had a right to shoot at them!!!

As for casualties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_Casualties2.svg

(WWII casualties by country, in millions and as percent of pre-war population.)

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The 20-30million I referred to was for the killing Japan DID in the Far East & SE Asia etc, not just China.

Interesting even though KMT in 1946 year after WW2 estimated that the total casualties of both military AND civilians only added to less then 5 million. That means there were more people out side of mainland china that became casualties. I wonder where they all been?

East Asia? Nope Korean peninsula up to East Siberia was Japanese territory so was Taiwan. Indonesia, Vietnam, Burma, Malaysia were sparely populated and many joined the Japanese force. Thailand was part of the Axis powers. More Japanese died in the Battle of Imphal then any locals so I wonder who consists of the remaining 15-25 million? Someone should actually history books for a change.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

According to the link, beside Germany, countries like Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary make it illegal to deny war crime/Jewish Holocaust.

That's six. Still not even close to being "most countries in the world".

As Pukey stated, the Jewish Holocaust is irrelevant to Japan.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

@GWSEP. 04, 2015 - 10:01PM JST

The 20-30million I referred to was for the killing Japan DID in the Far East & SE Asia etc, not just China.

That's not the problem I was thinking of. The biggest problem is that China, while suffering the most casualties, also in a sense deserves the least sympathy, because she had the most choice.

In 1941, the Japanese attacked a bunch of places in multi-divisional strength. Those places had no choice, but to fight - since the Japanese were coming for the kill.

In 1937, as mentioned, there were a few thousand Japanese troops in China, split in the area around Beijing and around Shanghai, both with their legal justifications which I must mention are also taken advantage of by other powers. In the region around Beijing, China had 150,000 troops, including several divisions which actually had 15000 people each in them (a very high number for a Chinese division).

On July 7, some Chinese soldiers saw fit to shoot at Japanese troops on exercise, repeatedly. The general Chinese and Western take on this is to pretend it did not happen and start the show with the missing Japanese soldier. However, that means they are completely nolo contendere on this whole first act. All the accusations and mitigations pretty much come from Japanese scholars. Nevertheless, a scenario start with the Chinese shooting is very different, and very difficult to excuse, versus a out of the blue Japanese demand to "search for their missing soldier". On the same note, the Japanese demands for the Chinese to retreat across the bridge, apologize for the mess and get rid of their hotheads take on a whole new meaning.

Next, on July 9, Chiang Kai Shek made the brilliant decision to announce the movement of 4 divisions (remember, the Chinese already have 150,000 in area) and the air force. Much is usually made of aggressive factions in the staff and all that but when all the smoke cleared, around the 12th, the Japanese moved ONE division (the 20th). It is still in its peacetime establishment, which means HALF the men and ONE-FIFTH the horses. Most historians aren't very good at military matters and are even weaker in military logistics so they miss this, but a division with one-fifth of its horse complement is extremely weak in supply and thus is robbed of all but a short-term combat capability. In other words, this should be assessed as a show of force, rather than any attempt to attack China. The US keeps sending its carrier battle groups everywhere for similar reasons and for less provocation than actually being shot at.

The Chinese make the brilliant decision to move in yet more divisions. Some of their front line troops take potshots at the Japanese. The Japanese finally decide to swing hard at the Chinese and move in three more divisions (remember, by now the region is just milling with Chinese divisions). Meanwhile, the forces in place conduct a limited attack defeating 3 Chinese divisions.

Chiang Kai Shek decides to attack the Japanese at Shanghai. After that, the gloves came off.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

AFP at it again, reinforcing Beijing's propaganda spin.

Since when exactly was the Second Sino-Japanese War called the "Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War”.

What a joke.

And how exactly was Mao resistanting "World Fascism" as he hid in his cave leaving a pretty damned fascist KMT to fight Japan.

Fine, the Communist Party is attempting to create an alternative reality, but should Western news agencies and this site really be supporting it?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I bet mister Shinzo Abe feels a lot better criticizing China than facing their criticism. Xi Jinping organized a huge military parade and said that "China will always uphold the path of peaceful development" - how do multiple border disputes make China peaceful? Now Shinzo Abe says something about not focusing on "unfortunate history", while he himself visited the controversial Yasukuni shrine provoking negative comments. Both politics appear to have a deficit of sincerity, their words are highly populist and a mere smoke and mirrors. You don't have to be a genius to come to such conclusion.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Kazuaki,

The 20-30million I referred to was for the killing Japan DID in the Far East & SE Asia etc, not just China.

The current J-govt is a disgrace! End of story.

YES China bend & twist & lie BUT they are COMMIES! Japan is SUPPOSED to be different, but they DONT act the part, they are a disgrace, but they are too stupid to even realize it!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That "unfortunate history" is also another way to show superiority, looking down with contepmt on your neighbours. It only shows how half literate these so-called leaders are. A country that somehow show deep remorse during the 70 anniversary is also now calling that very history an "unfortunate", more like an accident. Not sure whether they even graduate from a high school.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

But “now 70 years have passed since the end of the war, and we hope that (China) will tackle common issues shared by the global community in a forward-looking manner, instead of focusing on China’s unfortunate history,” he said, without elaborating.

People wouldn't still be going on about it, if Japan's politicians weren't spouting historical revisionism. It's not rocket science people

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Does history have adjectives? Its done, so who sees something different?

The ones who don't win, the ones who dont lose.

Is tnere anyone left over?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

China's unfortunate history???? Sweet Suga what type of comment is that? Clearly you missed the diplomacy 101 lectures! No wonder the Japanese government cannot be taken seriously and is an embarrassment to its people.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Unfortunate history..... WTF! How can killing 20-30million be termed unfortunate, that is highly offensive!!! abe you've got SOME NERVE!

First, they did not kill 20-30 million. 20-30 million (according to the Chinese after several expansions) died. There's a difference between the two.

Second, N million Chinese died because they, as a collective, decided to pick a fight with the Japanese they cannot win. July 1937 was not June 1941. There weren't millions of Japanese at the border that would have gone over. There were 5600 in the China Garrison Army and maybe a couple thousand in Shanghai (SNLF).

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Japan STOP this extreme dumbing down of YOUR atrocities!!

Unfortunate history..... WTF! How can killing 20-30million be termed unfortunate, that is highly offensive!!! abe you've got SOME NERVE!

Comfort Women...........they were SEX SLAVES!!

Earth to Japan IF you want this WWII to settle down YOU, JAPAN have got work to do!

This gross utter insincerity is truly disgusting!

Why don't you start by making yasukuni a PARKING LOT!

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Rather sensitive..... The Australians have a saying "Least We Forget" during ANZAC Day which commenmorates WW2 as well as the bombing of Darwin by Japanese Empiral Air Force.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Most countries in the world have no such law where denying the Jewish Holocaust is a crime including Japan.

What? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

According to the link, beside Germany, countries like Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary make it illegal to deny war crime/Jewish Holocaust.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Cina will stop celebrating the victory over japan when japan stops enjoying itself so much in victimhood over the atomic bombs.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

JaneM: "What does Japan commemorate on August 15th then?"

The end of the war -- not the same thing as commemorating surrender, exactly.

I had to listen, just this morning, to an old guy bleating on about how "China and South Korea are evil countries (but I like their dramas!). Japan did NOTHING wrong in history! Why does China have such a military parade and talk about peace?"

He had a valid point about the last bit, but the first comments are precisely why Abe has NO RIGHT to ask that other countries "don't bring up the UNFORTUNATE past", ESPECIALLY after asking the world to watch it commemmorate the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings (also celebrating Kamikaze and other suicide innovations) and Japan as the victim, etc. For this reason, and these kind of people, we should ALWAYS bring up the history, as 'unfortunate' as that may be for those who deny it or just want to play the selective memory game.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Criminals always want their crimes to be forgotten. Duh.

Calling Suga a criminal is a bit too much. None of the current politicians in Japan took part in the war. Today's Japanese are not criminals. They are not guilty of their ancestor's crimes.

Same for China. They are not victims, they are victims' descendants. Even if we agree to the formula that China won in WW2, it wasn't today's Chinese, it was their ancestors. There's not too much to celebrate and nothing to reproach.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

'This servers no meaning anymore, most people who committed the crimes in china are long dead, this hypocrisy need to stop; humans have committed many awful things( korean war, holocaust, slavery) just let it go'

I don't think s### happens so let's call call it a draw is the best way to approach disgraceful behaviour by humans throughout history. It doesn't really help.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"..........unfortunate history."

What an "unfortunate" choice of words !

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Imagine the outrage both in Japan and even among much of the U.S. population if the American government were to urge Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Japan not to focus on the "unfortunate history" of the nuclear bombs.

US President: Japan, stop ringing the bells on the days the bombs were dropped. Let's not focus on that unfortunate history.

That would not go over too well.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@plasticmonkey: It's noteworthy that the government and people of Japan commemorate the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not Japan's surrender.

Really?? What does Japan commemorate on August 15th then?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Japan on Thursday urged China to not focus on “unfortunate history”

Hypocritical considering Japan's unwavering focus on its own suffering during the war.

Imagine the outrage both in Japan and even among much of the U.S. population if the American government were to urge Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Japan not to focus on the "unfortunate history" of the nuclear bombs.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Do not underestimate the power of Toto washlet toilets and rice cookers. Scores of Chinese visitors buy them up for themselves for friends or to resell.

These are the best ambassadors for Japan right now and they do more to promote the present and moving on from the past than the people in the government.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

There is a difference between focusing on and totally denying "unfortunate history." The problem with this relationship is that both nations are overly preoccupied with their own view. The Japanese government, comprised of a group of hard-working navvies, are only content on burying the past. Meanwhile, China cannot take its foot of the accelerator and tone down the rhetoric because the public's gaze will start to wander (and people will start to ask inconvenient questions about other issues in China).

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Way to go Abe...you never get tired poking that tiger do you?

One day it might just take a bite at you and we will all feel it.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Abe's just inviting it by addressing it in suh an insulting way.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Abe has found the perfect way to piss off the Chinese and create more bad blood between Japan and China. Of all the stupid things that Abe has said and done this is about the worst.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Does Japan have a similar law? If no, why not?

Japan is a peaceful place to live even without strict laws governing what people say. Let's keep it at that.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

and China is going to drop everything and send all of the leaders home and cancel the parade? They don't give a hoot what the Japanese PM has to say and never will.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

PM Abe wants China to forget the "unfortunate history" but he gets to go to Yakusuni to worship and reflect on the war criminals "scarifice" for horrific crimes they commit ? How hypocritical. There is something seriously wrong in this guy's head.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

Japan urges China not to focus on 'unfortunate history'

why not? you do

7 ( +11 / -4 )

It's noteworthy that the government and people of Japan commemorate the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not Japan's surrender.

The end of World War II should be celebrated, not just by the victors, but also by the defeated.

If Japan really wants to move forward, it might learn a lesson from the German government. At this year's commemoration of Germany's surrender, Bundestag President Norbert Lammert said, "May 8, 1945, was a day of liberation. On May 8, a war was ended that a German regime had begun with criminal intent."

Abe, Suga, et al. claim that they want to move forward. Then start by celebrating September 3. It was a new start for the people of this country.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Next Abe will ask Google, Yahoo and Bing for the Right To Be Forgotten for the "unfortunate history".

8 ( +9 / -1 )

This servers no meaning anymore, most people who committed the crimes in china are long dead, this hypocrisy need to stop; humans have committed many awful things( korean war, holocaust, slavery) just let it go

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

That's because the Jewish holocaust didn't happen in most countries

That's my point. Why on earth would Japan enact such law that is not applicable?

-14 ( +4 / -18 )

Nigelboy:

Most countries in the world have no such law where denying the Jewish Holocaust is a crime including Japan.

That's because the Jewish holocaust didn't happen in most countries - they happened in certain countries in Europe. Not that many when you consider how many countries there are in the world. And the country where it all started - Germany - has strict laws and has faced history right in the face - hence why it has become respected by its neighbours.

On the other hand, Japan committed appalling atrocities across China and the rest of East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Waiting for another PR statement from you.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Criminals always want their crimes to be forgotten. Duh.

6 ( +16 / -10 )

"Hours before the ceremony kicked off, U.S. President Barack Obama heralded his country’s repaired ties with former foe Japan “as a model of the power of reconciliation”.

So true. Both sides suffered and both sides moved on (as have other nations). It's a lesson that China can't seem to accept.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

(China) will tackle common issues shared by the global community in a forward-looking manner, instead of focusing on China’s unfortunate history,” he said

Easy for you to say after bombing, pillaging & occupying china. Then to go as far as denying the major atrocities like Nanjing. Worse, not teaching those things in history class. The worst, sending scholars abroad in hopes of deleting the whole comfort women issue from the textbooks.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Does Japan have a similar law? If no, why not?

Most countries in the world have no such law where denying the Jewish Holocaust is a crime including Japan.

-18 ( +4 / -22 )

Lots of Chinese used the new holiday to promote participation in patriotic events in China to come to Japan. The gap between government friction and human to human relations is worrisome. Don't worry. Abe will be gone soon due to the failure of Abenomics, which was the reason people wanted him to be PM.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Why aren't there NEVER AGAIN parades in Japan? 12M-15M killed is an "unfortunate history?"

In Germany (and 13 other countries) it is illegal to deny the Jewish Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial I think that is going too far - individuals should be allowed to say pretty much anything they want as individuals. However, the government, government representatives and media outlets should not be allowed to deny passed atrocities. Abe won't step up for this, so the denials will continue and friction with Japan's neighbors will continue.

Does Japan have a similar law? If no, why not?

15 ( +20 / -5 )

more attempts at collective amnesia from Abe and his pals... is this what it has come down to - an unfortunate accident? I wonder what would happen if the US described the A bombs in a similar way to Japan...

13 ( +18 / -6 )

Japan urges China not to focus on 'unfortunate history'

“Unfortunate history” does sound more like natural disaster. Maybe Japanese soldiers happened to blow their way into China and killed the Chinese unintentionally. “Horrific history” was more like it.

15 ( +24 / -9 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites