Guru29 comments

And where does it say that they are to be given to China?

You have no idea that China was the only claimant to those islands at least between the 1940s to 1970s?

Even though Japan did not claim those islands, Japan simply invaded them during WWII as part of its plan to invade the whole of south-east Asia.

As for the south-east Asia countries, none of them made any claim of those islands before the 1970s. And even western colonial powers that existed in the region such as US, UK, France and Netherlands did not make any claim too.

Now, if the US did not support China's claim in the 1940s, at least indirectly, why then did it demand Japan to give up its claim to those islands?

The south China sea dispute was actually created by the US when it demanded Japan to give up its claims in the south China sea in the San Francisco Peace Treaty which says

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

So it appears that the US did support China's claims in the south China sea at least during the 1940s. As for Vietnam, it started to claim the Spratly Islands only around the 1970s but has managed to control the majority of the islands by now.

As for the Philippines, it started its claims only around the 1980s due to the fact that some of the islands are within 200km from its shoreline.

No the then Soviets acknowledged that there is a dispute when they offered two of the smaller islands to be returned and other two to be negotiated in the 60's to settle a peace treaty.

In order to make Japan totally isolated by its neighbors and remains helpless and fully dependent on the US, the US government started to encourage/instruct Japan to violate all WWII peace treaties it signed with the US government and reclaim territories it lost to the Allied (especially China and Soviet Union) shortly after the beginning of the Cold-war. That's how Japan's current territorial disputes with its neighbors came about.

Then in 1956, the Soviet tried to win Japan over by giving 2 of the 4 islands to Japan to settle their territorial dispute, this was initially supported by the Japanese foreign minister, Shigemitsu Mamoru. However, when the Americans learnt about it, the US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles (the person in charged of drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty during MacArthur time) quickly warned Shigemitsu that if Japan dared to comply with the San Francisco Peace Treaty to cede 2 of the 4 islands to Soviet Union, it could say goodbye to the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa) forever and the Ryukyus would then be part of the US.

As a result, Japan reclaimed all the 4 islands it ceded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty as demanded by the US and has not been able to conclude a peace treaty with Russia to this day.

As for the territorial dispute between China and Japan, if the US did hand over the Ryukyu Islands to the UN for independence as it agreed with China during the Cairo Conference and as what was stated in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, then there will be no dispute. However, when Japan started to get in touch with China by around 1970, Henry Kissinger made the decision to transfer the administration of the Diaoyu/Senkakus to Japan but "without handing over their sovereignty" in order to create discord between the 2 countries.

However when even doing so did not stop Japan from establishing a peace treaty with China in 1972, Henry Kissinger became very angry and said the following:

"Of all the treacherous sons of bitxhes, the Jps take the cake. It's not just their indecent haste in normalizing relations with China, but they even picked National Day as their preference to go there"

And when Japan held a 2+2 meeting with Russia a few months ago, Obama retaliated by asking his Pentagon spokesman to make the announcement on the same day that the US had no plans to defend the Diaoyu/Senkakus with Japan.

As for the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo islands), early US drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly recognized it as part of Korea, but in December 1949 - immediately following the establishment of the PRC, but before the outbreak of the Korean War, US treaty drafts reversed course and assigned the islands to Japan. Even though the actual San Francisco Peace Treaty did not mention the Dokdo islands, the US government did inform the government of South Korea that it regarded the Dokdo islands as Japanese without giving any reason.

From all the above, it is very clear that the US doesn't really care who the real owners of those islands are but it will forever use these territorial disputes it created for Japan after WWII to keep Japan as its protectorate for as long as possible.

16,000 police mobilized to protect Obama

This sounds just like a tradition of the Shinzo Abe's family.

When President Eisenhower planned to visit Japan in 1960, Shinzo Abe's grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi (class A war criminal who became PM of Japan with the help of the CIA) mobilized 18,000 Yakuza too for the protection of the president against demonstrators (leftists and students) who were protesting against the signing of the 1960 security treaty which made Japan a protectorate of the US in effect.

Japan considers its territory despite them being claimed by the Soviets in the final days of World War II

The fact is this territorial dispute has been settled by the 2 atomic bombs and various WWII peace treaties/agreements such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII).

Article 2 (c) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands"

And Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) says

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

Even though the US secretary of State, John Kerry said the US will protect Japan's claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea, the fact is Japan has given up its claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea too according to the various WWII peace treaties/agreements drafted by the US government itself.

Do you see my point? I am talking about Korean comfort women. You start talking about comfort women other than Korean. Why?

You have any proof that Korean comfort women were indeed treated differently by the Japanese as compared to say Chinese, south-east Asian or Dutch comfort women in the first place?

The following is a typical "training session" of a Korean comfort woman right after recruitment as described in a lecture note from Columbia University:

"On the first night there I was dragged before a high-ranking soldier and raped. He had a pistol. I was frightened at seeing myself bleed and I tried to run away. He patted my back and said that I would have to go through this experience whether I liked it or not, but that after a few times I would not feel so much pain. We were taken here and there to the rooms of different high-ranking officers on a nightly basis. Every night we were raped. On the fifth day, I asked one of the soldiers; “Why are you taking us from room to room to different men? What is our work? Is it just going to be with different men?” He replied: “You will go wherever orders take you. And you will know what your job is when you get there.”"

And this is the daily work routine of the Korean comfort woman as described in the same note:

"There was a large house right beside an army unit, and we were to be accommodated there. The house was pretty much derelict and inside was divided into many small rooms. There were two Japanese women and abut 20 Koreans there, so with the 30 of us who had arrived from Uiryŏng, there were about 50 women in total. The two Japanese were said to have come from brothels. They were 27 or 28, about ten years older than all the Koreans. The soldiers preferred us Korean girls, saying we were cleaner. Those who had arrived before us came from the south-western provinces of Chŏlla and the central provinces of Ch’ungch’ŏng and were of similar age to us. Those of us who had traveled together kept ourselves very much to ourselves. I was called “Langchang” there. From the 50 of us, excluding those who were ill or had other reasons, 35 girls on average worked each day. …

We rose at seven in the morning, washed and took breakfast in turns. Then from about 9 o’clock the soldiers began to arrive and form orderly lines. From 6 o’clock in the evening high-ranking officers came, some of whom stayed overnight. Each of us had to serve an average of 30 to 40 men each day, and we often had no time to sleep. When there was a battle, the number of soldiers who came declined. In each room there was a box of condoms which the soldiers used. There were some who refused to use them, but more than half put them on without complaining. I told those who would not use them that I had a terrible disease, and it would be wise for them to use a condom if they didn’t want to catch it. Quite a few would rush straight to penetration without condoms, saying they couldn’t care less if they caught any diseases since they were likely to die on the battlefield at any moment. On such occasions I was terrified that I might actually catch venereal disease. After one use, we threw the condoms away; plenty were provided."

Do non-Korean comfort women received different training or had different work routine as compared to what were described above?

Ask any Korean prostitute today. She would answer that she was tricked into the business rather than willingly went into the business. In addition, those comfort women in the US document testified they were not abducted.

While there are Korean comfort women who were abducted to "comfort" station such as the following one:

http://www.dw.de/former-comfort-woman-tells-uncomforting-story/a-17060384

I believe most of them were cheated into it by unscrupulous recruitment agents as described in the same note:

"I went to P’yǒngch’on to meet him and promised him I would go to Japan to work. He gave me the time and place of my departure and I returned home to ready myself to leave. In those days people were rather simple, and I, having had no education, didn’t know anything of the world. All I knew ― all I thought I knew ― was that I was going to work in a factory to earn money. I never dreamed that this could involve danger...."

She is Ms. O'Herne. She is not a Korean.

She is not Korean but even she said this:

"I have forgiven the Japanese for what they did to me, but I can never forget. The war never ended for the Comfort Women."

That is by no means the bottom line. The bottom line is finding what really happened

I believe that's probably the last thing the Japanese fascists/neo-Nazis have in their mind. CH3CHO, even the report that you referred to says this:

"Early in May of 1942 Japanese agents arrived in Korea for the purpose of enlisting Korean girls for "comfort service" in newly conquered Japanese territories in Southeast Asia. The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy."

So it is very clear that the 20 Korean girls rescued by US soldiers did not choose to become "military prostitutes" or sex slaves but were cheated by the Japanese agents into it.

As for other sex slaves, some of them were directly kidnapped by Japanese soldiers while others were forced by the Japanese military into becoming one as can be seen from the following question and answer session in a war crime tribunal:

"Q: Some witnesses said you raped women and sent them to military barracks for more sexual assault from Japanese soldiers.

A: I built a brothel for my soldiers and I used it too.

Q: Did the women accept being sent to the brothel?

A: Some accepted it and others did not.

Q: How many women lived there?

A: Six.

Q: How many women were sent against their will?

A: Five.

Q: Why were those women forcibly sent there?

A: They were daughters of people who attacked military police office.

Q: Were they sent to the brothel because of their fathers' activities?

A: Yes."

The following is the statement of a 25 year-old Dutch comfort woman who was kidnapped by Japanese soldiers in Magelang, Java Island in Indonesia:

"We were sent to an asylum from a detention camp by Japanese soldiers on January 28, 1944 and underwent a health inspection by Japanese doctors on February 3. We heard that we would be sent to a brothel for the Japanese. There was a rumor that the brothel would open that night. After returning to our room, Ms. Bracker and I closed all our windows and doors. Around 9 o'clock in the evening, we heard knock. Military police forced us not to close the door. The military police brought a Japanese soldier and said we must accept the soldier. The military police forced us to do so by saying, 'If you do not accept the soldier, your husband will be responsible for that.' The brothel was opened for officers in weekdays, and for sergeants on Sunday afternoons. Sunday mornings was for private soldiers and sometimes for common Japanese people. We always resisted but it was in vain."

On the Portuguese East Timor Island, the Japanese military forced the head of the area to cooperate with them to recruit comfort women. A Portuguese medic who witnessed the scene testified the following in June 1946.

"I know many places where Japanese people forced the head of each area to send girls to their brothels. They intimidated the head to cooperate with them in sending women and girls to the brothel by saying that they would send the head's relative girls to the brothel unless they cooperated."

The report also includes cases submitted by French inspectors which proved forced mobilization of prostitutes in Langson, Vietnam and fake advertisements for factory workers in Guilin, China.

Since when did "researching nuclear weapons" and "possessing nuclear weapons" become one and the same?

Well, the difference is only one step which could be equivalent to less than a few months. To shorten the period, Japan has amassed nuclear weapons materials that's even larger than what China, India and Pakistan have combined.

And if computer simulation is good enough to replace actual testing like what many Japanese claim, then there is really no difference.

It further called on leaders from countries equipped with nuclear arms to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two Japanese cities devastated by U.S. atomic bombings in World War II

Hasn't Japan been researching on nuclear weapons for decades even though no testing has been carried out? Shouldn't Japan stop the research too if it wants North Korea to stop?

The reports of the burial societies are not consider to be reliable as they were paid by the Japanese

So the humanitarian organizations that buried the victims aren't trustable in the eyes of the Japanese fascists/neo-Nazis?

What about statements made by Japanese such as former Prime minister Hirota Koki (9 March 1936 – 2 February 1937), Japanese Ambassador to Nazi Germany and General Yasuji Okamura, Japan's commander-in-chief in China:

"In a document sent by former Japanese foreign minister Hirota Koki to the Japanese Embassy in Washington on January 17, 1938, he stated "based upon investigation, over 300,000 Chinese killed". (Ref. National Archives, Washington, D.C., Released in Sept. 1994.)"

"In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking."

General Yasuji Okamura: "First, it is true that tens of thousands of acts of violence, such as looting and rape, took place against civilians during the assault on Nanking. Second, front-line troops indulged in the evil practice of executing POWs on the pretext of (lacking) rations."

Hatoyama was anti-US pro-China/Korea. Abe is exactly the opposite, pro-US anti-China/Korea.

Not really. The ultimate goal of both Hatoyama and Shinzo Abe is genuine independence for Japan. That's why both are disobedient in the eyes of the Americans and are distrusted by the US.

In order to break free from US Suzerainty, Hatoyama went by the direct way of building good relations with all surrounding neighbors of Japan and tried to resolve the territorial disputes that the US created for Japan after the beginning of the Cold-war through peaceful negotiation.

As for Shinzo Abe, he is trying to break free from US Suzerainty indirectly through 2 ways: I. pulling the US into a war with China to get it weakened and II. building nukes.

Yasukuni is too important place to stay away. My mother in law is visiting the shrine this afternoon. I'll go myself this month.

As the representative institution of State Shinto, the Yasukuni shrine is indeed very important for the Japanese fascists because its central belief is fascism and holy war.

Nanking was capital. If 300,000 were killed as China says, people there would have noticed.

The 300,000 figure is taken from the total number of dead bodies buried by the various burial societies and bodies disposed of by the various Japanese troops.

The fact is that the burial societies and other organizations counted more than 155,000 bodies before they were buried. However, this figure does not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning or by throwing them into the Yangtze River or otherwise disposed of by the Japanese. According to Japanese Lieutenant colonel Toshio Ohta's statement, between December 14 and December 18 the Japanese commanding headquarters of Nanjing Port disposed of 100,000 bodies while other troops disposed of 50,000.

So by adding up 155,000 to 100,000 and 50,000, you get the figure of more than 300,000. Again this figure still does not take into account the bodies that were destroyed by burning or by throwing them into the Yangtze River.

The Yasukuni is an evil cult whose central belief is fascism and holy war. It goes like this:

-The Japanese Emperor, as descendant of the Sun Goddess, the ruler of the Heavens is regarded as the living god of the Yasukuni much like what Jesus Christ is for the Christians.

-Being direct descendants of the 'eight hundred myriad' gods, the highest beings in the cosmos, the Japanese race is far more superior than all other races on the earth.

-Being the master race on earth, the Japanese are entrusted with the mandate from the gods to rule all inhabitants of the world who are not their equal. And anyone who dares to get in the way of the Japanese conquest must be completely destroyed.

-When the Japanese die in fulfilling the will of the gods, they are promoted to the rank of higher gods, or kami and become the patron gods of the Japanese race (Yasukuni gods).

Currently, around 2.5 million Japanese who died mainly in WWII have been promoted to the rank of Yasukuni gods.

If china takes senkakku itll be the end of American 7th fleet in Japan

That's the general warning from the Japanese to the Americans. That's if the Americans aren't willing to fight with the Chinese, then all American soldiers should go back home and Japan will cease to be a protectorate of the US from now on.

However, if the Japanese really get defeated by the Chinese in a war, it will mean they are so weak that they will continue to need help from the Americans. Furthermore, if Japan surrenders to China, it will mean Japan will be occupied by the Chinese according to the Potsdam Declaration. As for whether the Americans will continue to occupy Japan, it will be sorted out between the Americans and the Chinese either through war or peaceful negotiation. Furthermore, if the Russians join hands with the Chinese and move down from the north, Japan will also be occupied by the Russians.

So it is very clear that Japan will be the main loser if it dares to go to war with either China or Russia to settle its territorial disputes which had already been settled by the 2 atomic bombs and the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements between Japan and the Allies.

However, at the beginning of the cold-war, many American politicians felt that they had fought with the wrong enemy in a wrong war. The US government then canceled further rounds of the Tokyo War Crimes Trials and released the remaining top WWII criminals from the Sugamo prison and even funded them to help them to regain control of Japan.

In order to make Japan totally isolated by its neighbors and remains helpless and fully dependent on the US, the US government even encouraged/ forced the post-war Japanese government to violate the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements drafted by the US government itself and reclaim territories it lost to the Allies in WWII. That's how Japan's current territorial disputes with its neighbors came about.

For example, in 1956 when high-ranking Soviet and Japanese officials met to negotiate for a peace treaty, Soviet Union proposed to return 2 of the 4 islands to Japan to settle their territorial dispute, this was initially supported by the Japanese foreign minister, Shigemitsu Mamoru. However, when the Americans learnt about it, the US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles (the person in charged of drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty during MacArthur time) quickly warned Shigemitsu that if Japan dares to comply with the San Francisco Peace Treaty and cede 2 of the 4 islands to Soviet Union, it can say goodbye to the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa) and the Ryukyus will then be forever part of the US.

As a result, Japan reclaimed all the 4 islands it ceded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty as demanded by the US and has not been able to conclude a peace treaty with Russia to this day.

As for the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo islands), early US drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly recognized it as part of Korea, but in December 1949 - immediately following the establishment of the PRC, but before the outbreak of the Korean War, US treaty drafts reversed course and assigned the islands to Japan. Even though the actual San Francisco Peace Treaty did not mention about the Dokdo islands, the US government did inform the government of South Korea that it regarded the Dokdo islands as Japanese.

And regarding the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa), the Americans did reach an agreement with the Chinese to hand over the islands to the UN trusteeship system for future independence during the Cairo conference. This is even mentioned in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. However, after the establishment of the PRC, the US government changed its mind and handed the administration of not only the Ryukyu Islands but also the Diaoyu islands which are further south to Japan in 1972.

As we can see, under US manipulation, Japan has not been able to attain genuine independence even 7 decades after WWII and is still as isolated as before in North-east Asia.

Abe is a real man. Just like Putin

Don't think so. Abe is stupid and he will never be able to restore genuine independence to Japan.

How about all parties sitting down and considering joint development projects and collaborations

Don't think the US will allow it to happen. If the US wants to continue to keep Japan as its protectorate, then it will have to keep these territorial disputes alive. In fact, these territorial disputes were very much created by the US government after the beginning of the cold-war in order to make Japan totally isolated by its neighbors and remains helpless and fully dependent on the US.

By the way, Hatoyama was near to reaching agreement on some joint development projects with Hu in the east China sea a few years ago. That's probably one of the reasons why the US became very angry with him and he had to resign and even retire as a result.

In order to be able to continue to keep Japan as its protectorate, the US not only must keep Japan totally isolated but it will also has to ensure that there will be no major war between Japan and China or Japan and Russia.

Japan can prove sovereignty of the Senkakus as far back as 1895, and Takeshima was occupied forcefully by South Korea.

Japan only managed to colonize Korea (including the Dokdo islands) and Taiwan (including the Diaoyu islands) in 1895 following its victory over China towards the end the the 1894-1895 war of invasion. According to the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan), all these stolen lands must be returned as part of the settlement for WWII or Japan must face utter destruction.

The routes of the 1894-1895 Japanese invasion can be seen here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg

Everyone can see that China is attempting to change the status quo by force. They're taking advantage of Japan's pacifist constitution, knowing that they can provoke Japan without having to worry about them declaring war.

If Japan dares to go to war with China or Russia to settle these already resolved "territorial disputes", it will only end up with 2 choices, unconditional surrender or prompt and utter destruction (atomic bombs) as pronounced in the Potsdam Declaration.

Even the South Koreans are prepared to fight to death with the Japanese to defend their Dokdo islands. But then the US will never allow Japan to go to war with the Chinese, Russians or even South Koreans in the first place lest they lose their protectorate and many of their important bases in Asia.

If they don't like the report, they can take their respective claims to ICJ

Since these territorial disputes have already been settled with the 2 atomic bombs and the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements between Japan and the Allied. Japan will have to comply with these peace treaties/ agreements if it does not want to restart WWII. These peace treaties/ agreements include:

The San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 2 (c)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands...

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg north latitude (i.e. including the Ryukyu Islands but excluding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands)...

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan):

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

The Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

The 1972 China-Japan treaty:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

good lord, showing restraint in ones words is somehow likened to child abuse

It is murdering of 20 millions Chinese to be exact. And you expect the Chinese to keep silent about it?

From my research, Nanjing style of massacre wasn't only carried out in Nanjing alone. And not only in the parts of China that Japan invaded but throughout the whole of South-east Asia too albeit in smaller scales. The following is a typical war crime committed by Japan in South-east Asia as described in wikipedia:

"During the Battle of Muar, members of both the Australian 8th Division and the 45th Indian Infantry Brigade were making a fighting withdrawal when they became surrounded near the bridge at Parit Sulong. The Allies fought the larger Japanese forces for two days until they ran low on ammunition and food. Able-bodied soldiers were ordered to disperse into the jungle, the only way they could return to Allied lines. Approximately 150 Australians and Indians were too badly injured to move, and their only option was surrender. Some accounts estimate that as many as 300 Allied troops were taken prisoner at Parit Sulong.

The wounded prisoners of war were kicked and beaten with rifle butts by the Imperial Guards. At least some were tied up with wire in the middle of the road, machine-gunned, had petrol poured over them, were set alight and (in the words of Russell Braddon) were "after their incineration — [were] systematically run over, back and forwards, by Japanese driven trucks." Anecdotal accounts by local people also reported POWs being tied together with wire and forced to stand on a bridge, before a Japanese soldier shot one, causing the rest to fall into the Simpang Kiri river and drown.

Lt Ben Hackney of the Australian 2/19th Battalion feigned death and managed to escape. He crawled through the countryside for six weeks with two broken legs, before he was recaptured. Hackney survived internment in Japanese POW camps, and was part of the labour force on the notorious Burma Railway. He and two other survivors gave evidence regarding the massacre to Allied war crimes investigators."

If you are going to be killing off your own people, you should probably have a little restraint when it comes to telling off other nations for doing the same.

You think it is alright to abuse a child just because he had been abused by his father?

I thought it was PRC that said they couldn't accept the San Francisco Peace treaty because they weren't invited to the party.

You are right that China does not recognize the San Francisco Peace treaty because it was not invited by the US government to sign it.

As such, China only recognizes the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII) and 1972 China-Japan peace treaty.

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) says:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And the Japanese Instrument of Surrender says:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

The 1972 China-Japan treaty says:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

As for Japan, it only recognizes the San Francisco Peace treaty for the issues of war reparation but not for its territorial disputes.

The part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty which Japan doesn't recognize include at least the followings:

Article 2 (c)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands...

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg north latitude (i.e. including the Ryukyu Islands but excluding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands)...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the following agreement made between the US and China during the Cairo Conference:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization (UN trusteeship for decolonization of conquered colonies that was established in 1945 and as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

The Japanese should draw attention to the "historical fact that cannot be denied" of the tens of millions of Chinese killed by mass murderer Mao

Are you saying it is alright for Japanese to kill millions of Americans because the Americans had killed millions of native Americans?

What has Mao's crimes got to do with China-Japan issues anyway? Don't you know that Mao even thanked Japan for helping him to gain power in China?

Unless speaking the truth can get you killed - like in China perhaps?

I guess you could end up in jail for criticizing the government in China. However in Japan, you could be killed by the fascists (Yasukuni fanatics) or yakuza.

Japan should just ignore them and focus on becoming independent instead of wasting time on a hypocrite crappy government's remarks.

Don't you know that the real reason why Japan ended up as a protectorate of the US is because the Japanese government chose to do exactly what you suggested, that's dodging war responsibilities?

The Japanese government mentioned many times that the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty had resolved all issues of its war responsibilities including the paying of war reparation. And since both China and Korea were not invited by the US government to sign the treaty, both were not entitled to receive any reparation from Japan.

In other words, the Japanese government is saying that it was the US government that waived Japan from paying reparation to the biggest victims of its aggression, China and Korea. And in return for the "kindness" of the Americans, the Japanese government decided to sign the "protectorship treaty" with the US exactly on the same day when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed. This 1951 "protectorship treaty" not only allowed the the US occupying forces to continue their stay in Japan but also pretty much allowed them to do anything they like within the bases.

As for the issue of Japan's territorial disputes, they have been fully resolved by the various WWII peace treaties/agreements such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII) and even the 1972 China-Japan peace treaty.

For example, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty did demand that Japan gives up its claim to the Kurile Islands (dispute with Russia) and the Ryukyu Islands (the long island chain between Kyushu and the Diaoyu islands).

And in the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII) and 1972 China-Japan peace treaty, Japan even agreed not to claim any island that has not been certified to be part of Japan by China and the other 3 members of the Allies.

However, the current position of Japan regarding the territorial disputes is that the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII) and 1972 China-Japan peace treaty are all unfair treaties and that they will not comply with these treaties.

Japan has never officially denied that the massacre took place.

Well, many Japanese politicians did (up to the level of cabinet minister). And they have never been fired by the LDP government for denial of war crimes. Even the LDP party itself is founded by a group of top WWII criminals, fascists and Yakuza godfathers with the money (including drug money) that they plundered from China.

The fact is these top WWII criminals were released from the Sugamo prison not because they were clean but because they were fiercely anti-communists and were deemed to be useful for US's cold-war and for suppressing the influential Japanese leftists, that's socialists. One of such top WWII criminals who were released by the US government even became the prime minister of Japan. He is the grandfather of Shinzo Abe, Kishi Nobusuke who was also known as the monster of Showa (1926 to 1989) and monster of ManChukuo (Manchuria of China).

On the national level, out of the hundreds or thousands of war crimes that Japan committed, the only war crime that it has admitted is comfort women or military sex slaves. However, even admitting to one war crime is unbearable for the current fascist government and that's the reason why they are bent on revising the statements that were issued in the 1990s which admitted to the crime.

The long details of the opinions of the Chinese navy in the Sino-Japanese War that you posted bear no relevance to my statement.

The difference in military strength is certainly relevant since that is the key factor that caused Japan to postpone its sneak attack on China to 1894 and its invasion of Taiwan and the Diaoyu Islands to 1895.

According to official Meiji documents, Japanese Home Minister Yamagata Aritomo ordered Okinawa Governor Nishimura Sutezo to survey the Diaoyu Islands in 1885 and planned to set up a national landmark on the islands afterwards. However, Nishimura reported in his survey that these islands had long been discovered, named and recorded in official documents by China, and that the plan was inappropriate at that time since “this matter is not unrelated to China”. Yamagata subsequently consulted with Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru. Inoue advised that the plan should “await a more appropriate time” since two months earlier the Shanghai-based The Shanghai Mercury issued a warning that Japan planned to seize Chinese islands near Taiwan. Inoue therefore advised the Home Minister that the plan should be postponed and further instructed that the matter must not be made public through official gazettes and newspapers to avoid “inviting China’s suspicion”.

And the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894: “Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted.”

However, after a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War between 1894 to 1895, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.

The Senkakus were never taken by war or force, hence there was no violence.

You are indeed good at self deceiving, OssanJapan.

The fact is the whole world knows that the Japanese navy only managed to grab those islands after they destroyed the Chinese navy towards the end of the 1894-1895 Japanese invasion and when they were on their way to invade Taiwan.

The routes of the 1894-1895 Japanese invasion can be seen here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg

Japan colonized the Ryukyu kingdom in the 1870s but spent another 2 decades preparing for the invasion of China because it was believed that China had a more advanced naval force than Japan. According to wikipedia,

"The prevailing view in the West was that the modernized Chinese armies and navies would crush and defeat the Japanese. Chinese armies like the Anhui Army and Beiyang Fleet were commended and admired by the Western observers. They perceived China as militarily stronger.

Japan looked like it would lose, according to the German General Staff. A British advisor to the Chinese military, William Lang, was interviewed by Reuter. He praised the state of the Chinese armed forces and its training, modern ships, guns, and equipment. He stated that "in the end, there is no doubt that Japan must be utterly crushed", and viewed Japan as fated to lose the war."

USA adiz doesnt overlap with other countria and also nobody complained since its far away from other nations..

USA's ADIZ does overlap with the ADIZ of Canada. And Canada did complain about it.

but chinese adiz is almost over japan

Japan's ADIZ is huge as compared to the Chinese one as can be seen here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/131125121509-china-sea-air-defense-map-story-top.jpg

Japan's ADIZ is only 50km from the coastline of Russia and it overlaps with almost every other ADIZ in the region.

I wanna see what is going to happen when Japan starts to take a more assertive position on this.

Any assertive move taken by Japan will simply be met with even more assertive move from China and this situation will carry on until a restarting of WWII.

By the way, what assertive move can Japan take on those disputed islands when they are fully covered by Chinese WS-2D and WS-3A rockets which have a max range of 400km and 450km respectively?

How did Japan 'create all this mess'?

You mean the territorial disputes between Japan and its neighbors?

Japan indeed created the mess by refusing to honor the various WWII peace treaties/agreements it promised to comply and even now it is still reclaiming territories it lost to the Allies in WWII in those peace treaties/agreements. For example,

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) says:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And the Japanese Instrument of Surrender says:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

The 1972 China-Japan treaty says:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands...

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg north latitude (i.e. including the Ryukyu Islands but excluding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands)...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the following agreement made between the US and China during the Cairo Conference:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization (UN trusteeship for decolonization of conquered colonies that was established in 1945 and as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

And the US also played a part in creating this mess. We all know that the US has kept encouraging Japan to challenge the various WWII peace treaties/agreements drafted by the US government itself and to reclaim territories it lost to the Allies in WWII including the Kuril islands, Ryukyu islands and Senkaku islands. Some of you might believe that the US is ready to go to war with China or Russia in order to help Japan to expand. However, I don't think that's true.

The Americans knew that their core interest in east Asia is to keep Japan as its protectorate and its military bases in Japan for as long as possible. If the US loses Japan as its protectorate, it simply means it will lose most of its military bases and much of its influence in east Asia.

And the Americans knew that the only way to keep Japan as its protectorate for as long as possible is to encourage Japan to challenge the various WWII peace treaties/agreements and reclaim territories it lost to its neighbors. By doing so, not only that the Americans can ensure that Japan will remain helpless and isolated in east Asia and totally dependent on the US, they can also sabotage the sovereignty of their WWII allies and cold-war rivals China and Russia.

However, I don't think the Americans will go to war with China or Russia just for that purpose.

Germany and Israel are at peace. Why can't Japan and China be.

To tell you the truth, the US would never allow Japan to have good relations with China and even Russia since doing so means the US would lose its protectorate and almost all its military bases in east Asia.

The Americans knew that their core interest in east Asia is to keep Japan as its protectorate for as long as possible even decades ago. And they knew that the only way to achieve this is to make Japan totally isolated by its neighbors and remain helpless and fully dependent on the US.

That's exactly the reason why the US has kept encouraging Japan to challenge the various WWII peace treaties/agreements and reclaim territories it lost to the Allies including the Kurile islands, Ryukyu islands and Senkaku islands.

In fact, the Senkaku issue was actually created by the US for this purpose when Henry Kissinger decided to transfer the administration of these islands without handing over their sovereignty to Japan in around 1970.

This virtually ensured that Japan would never have good relations with China. And that's probably why Henry Kissinger became very angry when Kakuei Tanaka went to China in 1972 to normalize ties and said the following:

"Of all the treacherous sons of bitxhes, the Jps take the cake. It's not just their indecent haste in normalizing relations with China, but they even picked National Day as their preference to go there"

This shows the US has absolutely no interest in the sovereignty of these rocks as long as the problem will make Japan a US protectorate for as long as possible.

Besides encouraging Japan to reclaim the Ryukyus and Senkakus, the US also encouraged Japan to reclaim the Kurile islands that it had given up in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and by doing so, ensured that Japan would never sign a peace treaty with Russia. And even when Japan was near to signing the peace treaty to receive 2 of the 4 islands from Soviet Union, the US demanded that Japan gives up signing the treaty and go for all the 4 islands instead.

And when Japan held a 2+2 meeting with Russia recently, Obama quickly asked his Pentagon spokesman to publicly announce that the US has no plans to defend the Senkakus together with Japan.

This shows that the Senkakus is just a bait that the US uses to make Japan a permanent protectorate. And you actually owns these islands really doesn't matter to them.

And it seems the US even doesn't want Japan to have good relations with North Korea. That's probably why Japan was severely criticized by the US when Shinzo Abe sent an envoy to North Korea months ago.

So it is clear that the US doesn't want Japan to have good relations with its neighbors. Furthermore, it doesn't want Japan to go to war with its neighbors too since it is likely to lose its protectorate regardless of whether Japan wins or loses a major war against China or Russia. What it wants is just to keep Japan as its protectorate.

Setting overlapping ADIZ is totally unnecessary and is very dangerous.

Japan's ADIZ is also overlapping with the ADIZs of many other nations in east Asia. Just because you are Japanese, so you think Japan's ADIZ which is much bigger than the Chinese one is necessary and not dangerous at all?

Well since the islands were never taken in war, and China has no evidence that it was theirs anyway

I know you excel in self deceiving just like many other Japanese posters here. However, repeating a lie many times won't turn it into a fact.

The fact is those islands were annexed by the Japanese navy towards the end of the 1894-1895 Japanese invasion of China and Korea after Japan destroyed the entire Chinese navy and when it was on its way to invade Taiwan.

The routes of the Japanese invasion can be seen here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg

“There are regional disputes in that part of the world and those disputes should be resolved diplomatically,” he said.

Yes. Peaceful negotiation is certainly the best way to resolve the dispute.

And there is no doubt that China set up this air defense zone in order to force Japan to sit down and negotiate exactly like what the US is proposing.

However, I doubt this will be sufficient to force Shinzo Abe to negotiate since he had proclaimed that he would never with China regarding these islands.

Furthermore, Japan even told the lie that China doesn't dispute its claim over those islands i.e. there is no dispute at all.

We all know Japan excels in self-deceiving. So there is no doubt this dispute will carry on or even be escalated into a major war as long as Japan continues to tell the lie that there is no dispute.

Are you, two, advocating that Japan should build its nuclear weapons as well as conventional weapons to match China?

China already has plenty of nukes, even much more than what is required to destroy the whole of Japan. So China probably won't be too worried about Japan developing its own nukes.

According to the Japanese government, the main country that opposes Japan developing its own nukes is actually the US. This isn't surprising at all since Japan would certainly go for independence and ask the US military to leave Japan after it developed enough nukes for its own defense. The US would then lose its protectorate in Japan.

Crazy, nah realistic. If the PRC were to launch a single nuke they would discover that MAD is still alive and well.

As I said, a full blown nuclear war between China and the US is purely wishful thinking of the Japanese. And since both the Chinese and Americans know Japan is planning for a nuclear war between the two countries, they will try their best to avoid it since it will only make the Japanese happy.

To tell you the truth, any poster in this forum who tells you there will be a full blown nuclear war between China and the US is more than 90% of the time a Japanese, not Chinese or American. Believing wishful thinking as facts is just an old habit of the Japanese. This fact was fully demonstrated in WWII and it hasn’t changed even now.

Thanks for the link I read the article and China is clearly and undeniably the aggressor.

China can't be the aggressor since Japan has given up its claim to those islands according to the whole series of WWII peace treaties/agreements such as:

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) :

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands...

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg north latitude (i.e. including the Ryukyu Islands but excluding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands)...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the following agreement made between the US and China during the Cairo Conference:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization (UN trusteeship for decolonization of conquered colonies that was established in 1945 and as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

Japan warns of unpredictable events over China's new air zone

Isn't this exactly what the current Japanese government want to see so that it can gain support to dump the pacifist constitution?

Even DPM Taro Aso said Japan should learn from the Nazis in revising its constitution. Now, it seems like Japan need not follow Hitler's way.

Guru29Nov. 24, 2013 - 07:20AM JST If you actually believe that the PRC is prepared to face the full force to the US nuclear power then your masters have not taught you well.

A full blown nuclear war between China and the US over a few rocks? You must be crazy!

Well, You might change your mind if you know that the main interest of the US in east Asia is to maintain its protectorship over Japan and keeps its military bases for as long as possible and that the Senkaku problem was actually created by the US for this purpose when Henry Kissinger decided to transfer the administration of these rocks without handing over their sovereignty to Japan in around 1970.

This virtually ensured that Japan would never have good relations with China. And that's probably why Henry Kissinger became very angry when Kakuei Tanaka went to China in 1972 to normalize ties and said the following:

"Of all the treacherous sons of bitxhes, the Jps take the cake. It's not just their indecent haste in normalizing relations with China, but they even picked National Day as their preference to go there"

This shows the US has absolutely no interest in the sovereignty of these rocks as long as the problem will make Japan a US protectorate for as long as possible.

Besides encouraging Japan to reclaim the Ryukyus and Senkakus that it had given up in the various peace treaties/agreements thereby creating bad relations between China and Japan, the US also encouraged Japan to reclaim the Kurile islands that it had given up in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and by doing so, ensured that Japan would never sign a peace treaty with Russia.

And when Japan held a 2+2 meeting with Russia recently, Obama quickly asked his Pentagon spokesman to publicly announce that the US has no plans to defend the Senkakus with Japan.

This shows that the Senkakus is just a bait that the US uses to make Japan a permanent protectorate.

And it seems the US even doesn't want Japan to have good relations with North Korea. That's probably why Japan was severely criticized by the US when Shinzo Abe sent an envoy to North Korea months ago.

So it is clear that the US doesn't want Japan to have good relations with its neighbors. Furthermore, it doesn't want Japan to go to war with its neighbors too since it is likely to lose its protectorate regardless of whether Japan wins or loses a major war against China or Russia.

Guru29, Do you have nationalistic music in the background when writing such statements?

Don't just reply facts with rubbish. Prove me wrong if you can.

Police station never gives a notice of arrest that they are coming to arrest you. Hope you know what I mean.

No. The CIA won't arrest me for telling you the consequences of invading China exactly like what Japan used to do in the 1800s and as what JoeBigs suggested in his post.

And attacking China's nuclear power plants with regular missiles like what Farmboy suggested won't help too since it won't destroy China and China will certainly retaliate with nukes.