Hansaram comments

Trump tactic remind me of those racist political party in Malaysia, UMNO, who like to instil Chinese phobia to get votes/support.

I could never understand the appeal of all these idols.

I like reading Chinese classics. Japan learned a lot from China in the past. Many Japanese read the Chinese classics as westerners read Greek and Roman classics. I am confused about the current behaviors of China and Chinese people which are far from civilization.

Communism poison their mind. Other Chinese majority countries, Taiwan and Singapore got no problem with their neigbours. KMT, the one who fought Japanese in WW 2 can get along well with the Japanese after WW 2.

@Daniel Neagari

You claim there are other good things brought by the Japanese during their occupation in other countries. For Taiwan, maybe. Other countries, not true.

Remember, aside of China and the Koreas, other countries occupied by Japan during early to mid 1900s have a relatively good relationship with Japan and are mostly friendly.

True,but that because they move on from the past, not because Japan did good thing during the occupation.

Sorry China. When it comes to south China sea, you are clearly the villain here.

Only if Japan stop distorting and whitewashing history.

Good. UN is no way bias as Japan claimed. Japan need to learn to move one and accept history. Thousands of innocent Chinese civilians killed by Imperial Japan in Nanking Massacre.

Obama:When more than 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/05/statement-president-trans-pacific-partnership

Go home Abe! You are drunk!

And as others have pointed out, it isn't a given that everyone in Taiwan actually wishes to declare independence; many do still identify as Chinese and want Taiwan to be part of China, but they don't accept the CCP as the legitimate government of China.

Many as in majority of them?

Most Taiwanese consists of ethnic Chinese and it was KMT that fought Japanese during WW2 but even then, Taiwan and Japan can establish a good relationship today and move on from the past. CCP, please learn from Taiwan.

China, before you accuse other of being threat, please look yourself into the mirror.

And China keeps trying to convince the world that "all of Asia" hates Japan.

Forget to mention something in my previous post. To be more accurate, all of Asia hate Imperial Japan but not modern Japan. China as usual still live in the past.

A majority of people in the Asia-Pacific region who were surveyed, not including the Chinese, have a positive view of China.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/09/02/how-asia-pacific-publics-see-each-other-and-their-national-leaders/

China threat is overrated.

And China keeps trying to convince the world that "all of Asia" hates Japan. Truth is that all of Asia (except Korea) hates China.

No. Only Japan and Vietnam don't like China. China is actually viewed more favorably than south Korea and India.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/09/02/how-asia-pacific-publics-see-each-other-and-their-national-leaders/

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.