Forum - View topicNEWS: Politically-charged Manga Suspended in Japan
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CFizzLe
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||||||
|
The Japanese surrendered thus ending the war. How is that not resulting in peace?
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
CrackaJax
 Posts: 250 Location: Mount Olympus, Syracuse University |
|
|||||||||||
My US II history class taught me that because of the nuclear bombs dentonated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan did not want to continue the war with the US, for fear of more bombs. Also, we dropped the bombs for fear of having to invade Japan, which would have had a much greater loss of life. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
enjin2000
 Posts: 1484 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||
I don't understand why a low-teen girl is an example on this matter. It seems you select only a sample to support your biased (at least it seems to me) view. It was anime forum, wasn't it? If I were a juniour high school pupil, I would be annoyed when I were asked about the highly-political matters in the pop-culture forum in the foreign language. Let's try debating on the issue whether the Vetnam War was right or wrong in the Star Wars forum.
Sigh. The professor criticized the textbook by a revisionist group, not the ones used commonly in Japanese high school, didn't he/she? Only 3 or so high schools adopted it after all. I learnd with a book by Yamakawa Publishing. I have a copy of the latest edition and found it covered Japan's brutal activities in China with a map showing when and where Japanese army invaded China.
Strange. I were the diplomat, I would also have tred to avoid discussing the issue just because I am a diplomat. I think the man/woman in the position is taught in any civilized country not to talk about the political issue hastily, isn't he/she? If I tried to argue about Hiroshima with the American diplomat, he/she would try to avoid the topic. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
enjin2000
Posts: 1484 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||
I'd like to know whom you mean by the certain people. I think some UFO believers do not represent the people of the U.S.
It seems that the people you mean by 'they' do exit only in your own brain. At least I do not/will not belong to 'them.' In addition, even American scholars agree that there are some questionable pictures from China. Nanking occured, but some proof are questionable. That's all. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
enjin2000
Posts: 1484 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||
Headache. Truely, I did not think the U.S. pupils were still taught wrongly. If it was true that the A-bombs decided us not to continue the war, don't you think why they must have been used without warning? If I were Truman, I would have thrown it somewhere in an isolated island very near the Japan Archipelago, for example an island in the Inland Sea of Japan, because it would produce the same effect --- make Japan surrender --- without using the ultimate weapon, like some military and scientific bigshots including Einstein claimed. It was an easy job. Why did Truman use A-bombs so hastely? Because there was a secret (at least to Japan) agreement between Stalin and him at that time. He knew Soviet would enter the Asia-pacific War soon and needed to make Japan surrender on their own before Soviet participates because he wanted the U.S. to take the leadership in East Asia after WWII. Indeed, the majority of the occupation army was American. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it." - attributed to an unnamed U.S. Army officer, shortly after the Tet offensive
Excellent point.
Well, there are several good military arguments in favour of launching such an attack without warning. The most telling point is that the United States was not in possession of an unlimited supply of bombs. They only had a few, and given the technology of the time, it would take a long time to produce more. Furthermore, the launch vehicle of the time was a bomber plane, not an ICBM. Planes are far more vulnerable to enemy defenses, and had the Japanese been warned, the likelihood of an attack succeeding would have been reduced. The bomb itself had never been tested in an actual bomb drop situation, and the military was worried that it might not detonate. Furthermore, there was very real concern that the Japanese would move U.S. prisoners of war to likely bomb targets, as "human shields" (this was in fact the tactic adopted by Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War). Finally, there was perhaps an emotional conviction that this was tit-for-tat, since the attack on Pearl Harbor had been launched without warning.
No, it probably wouldn't. First, the bombs (as noted earlier) were in short supply. Second, reliable eyewitness reports following the first bombing indicate that the Japanese leadership had not yet grasped the significance of the bomb - and this was after the obliteration of a city. A bomb dropped on a remote location would probably not have been convincing.
This is a strong argument, and probably constitutes a large part of the truth about Truman's motivations. Truman's diary, as well as other archival documents, reveal that Truman (regardless of other claims) was well aware that Japan's surrender was imminent, even before the bombings. Urged by General Marshall to issue a warning, he refused. It seems likely that his intention with the bombings was to terrorize, not the Japanese, but the Soviets. - abunai |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15314 |
|
|||||||||||
|
enjin:
Um, your emperor was asked to surrender twice, and he refused twice. He was "warned". And your country didn't exactly warn Asia that it was going to invade either. Oh, and then there's the Pearl Harbor thing...
Or maybe your propaganda people would've twisted it around to make it look like it wasn't such a threat after all.
Regardless of Truman's intentions, you're talking about a country that would send out kamikaze fighters when it ran out of weapons, because it refused to admit defeat. The bomb might not be morally right, but neither is the mess Japan left in Asia. And it's not like the Soviets could've invaded Japan anyway, after losing 20 million people defending against Hitler.
Then that's three too many, as far as I'm concerned. Especially if it risks churning out more apologists like Koizumi. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
giao_su
 Posts: 27 Location: Great Lakes, USA [near, not in] |
|
|||||||||||
|
Warning: This is a lengthy post.
I see the textbook issue as not so much whether something is mentioned, but how it is mentioned. Japanese history textbooks have been criticized both within Japan and internationally for systematically minimizing (if not denying) atrocities committed by the Japanese government, military, and corporations during the first half of the 20th Century. Some relevant sites on the Web include + International Scholars' Appeal Concerning the 2002-Edition Japanese History Textbooks http://www.jca.ax.apc.org/JWRC/center/english/appeal1.htm + Children and Textbooks Japan Network 21 http://www.ne.jp/asahi/kyokasho/net21/ + Nomination of Professor Saburo Ienaga for the Nobel Peace Prize http://www.vcn.bc.ca/alpha/ Since no one has said that the Japanese people are murderers, we can reject this straw man argument. However, the issue of blame seems relevant. I think that there is a distinction to be made between responsibility and blame. Blame carries the meaning that one is at fault for some action or event. Responsibility refers to being called to account, being liable for for some action or event. One may take responsibility without being to blame. For example, parents are held responsible for damages inflicted by their minor children, although the minor is to blame. If I unknowingly purchase stolen property and then discover that it was stolen, I have a responsibility to return it to its rightful owner without compensation (from the owner) even though I am not to blame for the owner's loss. The current Japanese government did not decide to begin a policy of military aggression in the first half of the 20th Century. I don't believe that the current Japanese government would countenance such actions today (at least I hope not). However, I believe that the current government is responsible for the damage resulting from Japanese aggression during the first half of the 20th Century. I believe that the government is obliged to apologize for these atrocities to make clear, among other things, that these are not actions that would be countenanced today. Taking responsibility also means making restitution for damage unjustly suffered. However, the Japanese government has consistently refused to take such responsibility unless forced to by the courts. In some cases, this has bordered on the ludicrous (e.g., In 2002, after 27 court hearings since 1998, and with former Unit 731 (bacteriological weapons unit) Japanese soldiers testifying that they had carried out biological warfare, a Japanese court recognized for the first time that Japan had conducted biological warfare in China during WWII. Despite this, the Japanese government still refused to recognize that the Japanese military ever waged biological warfare due to "lack of evidence.") Interestingly, the actions of the Japanese government are quite different from those of the German government, its wartime ally. In 2000, the German government decided to build a monument just south of the landmark Brandenburg Gate to promote awareness of Nazi atrocities. The monument consists of a large field of slabs resembling stones in a graveyard. There is also a monument of sorts to wartime atrocities in Japan. Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi has made four visits to pay homage at the Yasukuni Shrine http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FA06Dh02.html since he became prime minister. In 1978, 1,068 convicted war criminals, among them executed wartime prime minister Hideki Tojo and 13 other Class A war criminals, were enshrined there. Referring to the convicted war criminals, a pamphlet aimed at children that is distributed by the shrine says: "Some 1,068 people, who were wrongly accused as war criminals by the Allied court, were enshrined here." January 27 was established in 1996 as Germany's annual Day of Remembrance for Victims of Nazism. The Japanese government has set up a slightly different Day of Remembrance. Every year on August 15 at noon, Japan's national day of mourning, the Japanese government calls for a minute of silence "in memory of the more than 3 million who perished in WWII." These are only for Japanese casualties. The Japanese government does not appear to regard the rest of Asia's 30 million war casualities as worthy of remembrance. The German Parliament passed a bill in 2000 setting up a 7.5 billion dollar slave fund for the Nazi-era slave and forced laborers. They formally apologized to the victims "for what Germans did to them". In 2002, the German and Canadian governments signed an agreement that Germany would pay pensions starting next year to German-speaking Canadian Jews who were living in Eastern Europe during WWII. Germany has paid similar pensions to Jews and non-Jews living in Israel and the US since 1995. The Japanese government has established no such state funds and denies any legal responsibility to make compensation to the victims of wartime atrocities. BTW, there is a similar issue involving the United States government and its responsibility to Agent Orange victims in Viet Nam. I include this to make clear that this post isn't about Japan-bashing, but about taking responsibility. If you are interested, there are a number of Web sites that deal with the Japanese Military's wartime atrocities and/or the Japanese government's refusal to take responsibility. + UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Mission to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery in Wartime http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/b6ad5f3990967f3e802566d600575fcb?Opendocument + American Missionary Witnesses to the Nanjing Massacre http://www.library.yale.edu/NotaBene/nbx3/divupdat.htm + UN Commission on Human Rights, Contemporary Forms of Slavery: Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-Like Practices during Armed Conflict (see Appendix: An Analysis of the Legal Liability of the Government of Japan for "Comfort Women Stations" Established during the Second World War) http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/fb00da486703f751c12565a90059a227/3d25270b5fa3ea998025665f0032f220?OpenDocument + There's Life on the Railway of Death http://www.thingsasian.com/goto_article/article.1124.html In light of the foregoing, is there anyone out there who is the least surprised that I feel queasy when there is niggling about a drawing in a comic book. The clear intent of the protest over Kuni Ga Moeru is not about any sort of historical integrity. Whatever the picture, the Rape of Nanjing, the Nanjing Massacre (not the sanitized "Nanjing Incident" in many Japanese history textbooks) occurred. The atrocity is the government-sanctioned rape and murder, not some supposedly innacurate rendering of a photograph. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
tekkaman
 Posts: 117 Location: Space Knight HQ |
|
|||||||||||
|
The photo used can be seen in photo book about Nanking Massacre; not sure what is the name. I really feel that Japanese should recongized the evil that they did during the first have of the 20th Century.
Danger: politically charged rant below!! As for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Lemay, commander of the 20th Air Force, selected them because both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed like other cities in Japan. They were excellent test subjects for the effects of atomic blast on cities. Check out the film "Atomic Cafe." Turman used the bombing to scare the Russians and force the war to end quickly. "Operation Downfall", the invasion of Japan would have destoryed his adminstration. "Operation Olympic" set in November 1, 1945 with the invasion of Kyushu could have be costly for the Americans with an estimated 250,000+ casualties, which would either slow down or stop "Operation Cornet," the invasion of Honshu, set in March 1, 1946 can cost the Americans even more casualties; around 750,000+. The invasion of Japan was a political suicide for the Truman adminstration. Of course, the whole Pacific War could have been avoided had Commodore Matthew C. Perry not sailed into Toyko Bay and forced the Japanese to trade with them at gun points and treat the Japanese as "Burden of the White men". Japanese at 1853 were living in isolation for nearly two hundred years. Then Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo bay and threaten the Tokugawa shoguns that controlled Japan to trade with them. Commodore Perry threaten that had the Japanese not capitulate to his demands, which is opening Japan to Western Imperialism he would invade Japan the following year. Realizing this, the Tokugawa shoguns conceded and in 1858 signed various trade treaties with the western imperialist nations. Such act in modern time would have been considered as an act of war. To compete with the Western Imperialists, Japan underwent a massive modernization, the Meji Restoration. They even adopted Western Imperialist ways including conquests of other countries namely Korea and parts of China in the late 19th and early parts of 20th Century and SE asian countries in the World War II. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
enjin2000
Posts: 1484 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||
Sigh. The answer is, read the textbooks on your own before referring to some sites. Most of those who critisize Japan have not or not tried to read or study many things, reference material and so forth in Japanese. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||
That's completely erroneous. In fact, the Soviet forces in the East were relatively well-supplied and in a comparatively high state of readiness (although they were far from the European theatre, where most Soviet fighting had taken place, they were not second-rate troops - Stalin realised the dangers of an attack from behind), whereas the Japanese forces were stretched thin and war-weary. In the brief period between the Soviet declaration of war and the Japanese capitulation, the Soviet forces made short work of the Japanese forces in the north of China, and would presumably have had little difficulty in executing a concurrent invasion with the Americans, had the U.S. not been one step ahead. - abunai |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
enjin2000
Posts: 1484 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||
I recommend you count how many times the Germany government announced *its* responsiblity for WW2 in the past 50 years. I was surprised to hear that the current President of Germany said in a speech on the effect that he was shamed and terrified with Nazi's brutality. They always say Hitler and Nazi are wrong, but I wonder how many times they said *Germany*. Last edited by enjin2000 on Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||
Well, then, if you feel so strongly that these textbooks present a more balanced view of the events than the critics say, why don't you offer us some quotations from these highschool textbooks, demonstrating that their version of history is balanced and not as biased as claimed? 単刀直入。 I'm sure you can find a few commonly-used textbooks and copy some of the text here (well within the limits of fair use, I would judge). Personally, I'd love to hear it "straight from the horse's mouth".
This would be a fine point, if Japan had taken responsibility, or even gone as far as the Germans had (by disavowing the wartime acts of the wartime regime), but they haven't done that. So what you are doing here is calling Germany to task for offering what you think is less than a full measure of apology, when your own nation hasn't even offered up a half-measure. - abunai |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
enjin2000
Posts: 1484 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||
I am not opposed to using the term of Nanking Massacre, though an American student told me that Nanking Atrocities is used commonly in the West. However, Rape of Nanking is the title of Iris Chang's book. I think it is inadequate to use it here as if it were a historically formal name, don't you? The question in the Motomiya problem, he redrew the man in the picture as if it were a real Japanese solder in his manga. I saw the original one and found he was not wearing the uniform of the then Japanese army. The questionable photo is probably quoted from Chang's book. When it was published, some Japanese scholars pointed out some photos (including it Motomiya reffered to) in the book could be fabrication. Professor Hata, one of the scholars, is well-known in Japan that he admits that Nanking Incident *did occur*, and at the same time he emphasizes that fabrication is fabrication. However tragic Nanking was, it is inadequate to fabricate *proof*. So long as the claim is made academically, no one is not allowed to blame it. Again, let me emphasize that there is no denying that Motomiya modified some photos in order to draw histrical drama. It should not be accepted in any civilized country. That's why Shueisha announced its suspention of the serialization for a while. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
CrackaJax
Posts: 250 Location: Mount Olympus, Syracuse University |
|
|||||||||||
Wrong. Saying Germany was wrong would be saying that everyone who lived in Germany at that time was responsible for the Nazi's brutality, including the German Jews. Hitler and the Nazis, as well as their supporters, were the ones responsible. Many people feigned (sp?) an allegience to Hitler in order to escape the possibility of death, or visiting the death camps too. And what about those who helped hide the Jews? Certainly they cannot be held responsible for Hitler's work. You need to realize his reasoning behind this before posting. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group