What's new

It's NOT a crime to visit Yasukuni Shrine !

McTojo

Sempai
5 Oct 2005
100
10
28
The term "War Criminal" was created by non-Japanese during The Tokyo War Tribunals which was a one-sided judgement from the winning country to a losing country. So even from such a fact, there is no reason why Koizumi shouldn't visit Yasukuni.

Even more so than that, Japanese culture treats all dead people as innocent, so the respectable visit to Yasukuni is no business to other countries. There were people like Takamori Saigo and others who were not forgiven to be in the Yasukuni, but that is merely a domestic mistake made in Japan, and that does not change the idea of forgiven ancestors.

Everybody has the right to pay respects to their fallen leaders no matter how evil or heinous they were. People still pay respect to Idi Amin , a man who was never tried in a court of law; a man who murdered close to a million Asians and Africans.

What kind of message are we trying to send here ? Are we saying that if a criminal court deems a man a War Criminal or a Genocidal Murderer we can't honor that person as a countryman of our nationality if we agree with his actions ? Does the judges gavel have a rubber stamp at the end of it that says " This man is Bad forever, and if you pay homage to him and the ideals he stood for then you're a criminal too"? The point is is that Japan should honor its war dead and they should be honored at Yasukuni Jinjya which stands for "Peace." Now, there are many Japanese who oppose having their loved one's buried there because of matters pertaining to Buddhism and Shintoism, and of course, the negative stigma of Class-A war criminals but keep in mind also that there are no remains in the Shrine itself of any war criminals.




__________________
 

Attachments

  • 20050103yasukuni00567gu.jpg
    20050103yasukuni00567gu.jpg
    129.7 KB · Views: 161
Last edited by a moderator:
"We?" Who is this magic "we" that is condeming Koizumi for visiting Yasakuni? And what logic exactly is it that brings you to the conclusion that "we" condemn him because he's visiting 'war criminals' rather than the slew of other reasons it may be a bad idea?

You seem to be dumbing down the issue into two sides, and then giving the opposition side a single reason for their opposition, which severely dumbs down the discussion of the topic (to put it politely).

Japan invaded Southeast Asia. This is a fact. The people who planned and carried out that invasion are for a large part enshrined in Yasakuni. This is also a fact.

Considering these two facts, lots of people in Southeast Asia get upset when the Prime Minister of Japan goes and visits these people who planned and carried out an invasion of their home countries. Shocking, I know. Do you truly think that the Koreans care whether or not Tojo is labeled a 'war criminal' or otherwise? Do you think that this is an argument about semantics, and that if Tojo were suddenly labeled a 'man who loves cute puppies' that they would be entirely content with the visit to the shrine?

Furthermore, there is the fact that the shrine is owned not by the Japanese people, but by a bunch of nationalists who refuse to separate certain remains despite discussions and requests about that very issue. By visiting the shrine regardless, Koizumi makes it look like he is conceding ground to the nationalists on an issue that could go a long way in lessening the vitrol spewed over the issue on both sides of the Sea of Japan.

Furthermore, Koizumi loves to label these shrine visits as 'personal' rather than 'official' which really doesn't matter much to people who don't care about the semantics of the issue. Koizumi is the Prime Minister. Regardless of whether something is 'personal' or 'official,' each affects aspects of the other. I sincerely doubt that people would very well tolerate a 'respectful' 'personal' visit of Hitler's grave by the Chancellor of Germany.

It's really simple to see why people would be pissed about this. There is a shrine which honours people who planned and carried out an invasion of Southeast Asia which had/has a lot of people in those countries considerably irked. The Prime Minister of Japan is photographed yearly going there and paying homage to the war dead, of which those invaders were a part.

Could it be any clearer why "we" are irked about it?
 
窶督シ窶督ウ窶堋オ said:
'Ex-Taiwan Leader Tries to Drum-up Support for Taiwanese Independence' may be a more fitting title... Lee Teng-hui is a staunch supporter of Taiwanese Independence and sought diplomatic ties while in office, as well as confirming his support for the independence movement post-presidency.

Not that it doesn't invalidate his support, but it just puts some perspective on why he may do it.
 
McTojo said:
The term "War Criminal" was created by non-Japanese during The Tokyo War Tribunals which was a one-sided judgement from the winning country to a losing country.

So you also lack the knowledge about International (criminal) laws, do you ?

Even more so than that, Japanese culture treats all dead people as innocent, so the respectable visit to Yasukuni is no business to other countries.

What if I said that other countries do not necessarily regard dead people as innocent and therefore it is their business ? It's a bit too easy for a country to invade dozens of other countries, kill millions of people, then say "our culture says that only the leaders are responsible for the crimes committed, and once they are dead, they become innocent and everything is forgiven".

Everybody has the right to pay respects to their fallen leaders no matter how evil or heinous they were.

According to you ? Well, there are hundreds of millions of people who disagree (just look at China). In ay case, we are not talking about ordinary people, but the head of state, paying homage to people who caused misery, ravage and desolation for hundreds of millions of people.

People still pay respect to Idi Amin , a man who was never tried in a court of law; a man who murdered close to a million Asians and Africans.

As long as nobody complains, that seems ok. Here, we have several governments making official complaints. What's more, Mr Koizumi publicly apologised in front of all Asian nations this year, and his visit to the Yasukuni Jinja today really means that his apologies were insincere and that he doesn't give a damn about the governments and people or Asia. This in itself is very irrespectful. Less than that has already caused wars in history.

This man is Bad forever, and if you pay homage to him and the ideals he stood for then you're a criminal too"?

Do you realise that the Japanese Imperial Army massaced about 12 million people between 1937 and 1945 ?

The point is is that Japan should honor its war dead and they should be honored at Yasukuni Jinjya which stands for "Peace."

There is no problem with honouring war deads. But did you know that the war criminals that cause problem here were only added to the Yasukuni Shrine in 1978, and not in 1945 like ordinary soldiers and people ? Why would they do that ? Why not create a separate shrine for war criminals so that Koizumi or other officials could visit Yasukuni without offending anyone.
 
number murdered...

Mao was just as murderous which eventual turned China into a totalitarian , democracy whenever it's convenient/ Communist, style of government.

Let's not point fingers...
 
Conti...

If the Japanese people, including heads-of-state, decide that Yasukuni is not in their best interest then let the Japanese decide this, not China.

Most Japanese could careless about what happened sixty years ago and neither should the world...why ? The answer is simple. Japan did no better nor worse than any other industrialized nation or superpower. It's so easy to point the finger at Japan, an island nation that arose from the ashes of two atomic bombings; a nation that has become the second strongest economy in the world and a hallmark of western civilization with a Democracy that actually works.

Those class-A war criminals that are enshrined at Yasukuni are there because they obeyed the Emperor who acknowledges his involvement in the war according to Herbert Blix " Hirohito and the making of modern Japan."

Now, if we were to contrast this it would be like German PM Schroeder going to visit a shrine in Berlin with Hermann Goering and Hitlers remains inside them, to pay his respects to German war heroes. Would do wonders for Franco-German relations, wouldn't it ? But, remember Hitler and his hordes were bent on the systematic extermination of the Jews which by far was the largest single attempt at the eradication of an entire race of people in history.
This was Hitler's mission ! He didn't care about natural resources as much as he cared about the annihilation of the JEWS and world domination.

The Japanese weren't bent on world domination. If that were true then after Pearl Harbour Japan would of continued her push to the mainland and eventually annexed California, but who knows...right ? No, matter how awful Nanking was the Japanese were not on a mission to annihilate the Chinese.
Sure, blind allegiance may of led them to commit acts of savage murder but that was for fun and to regale their friends with stories of conquest in asia. These soldiers were given a hereos welcome upon returning to Japan and awarded metals of valour for courage .

In the end, it should be left up to the Japanese to decide the fate of Yasukuni and not the Chinese who were the victims because if that's the case then we should issue out subpoena's to every industrialized nation for commiting some barbaric act of murder at some point in history along long time ago...boohoo...Nobody ever cried for the 70,000 plus Rwandan's who were murdered and the list goes on and on... The future Japan
 

Attachments

  • 20050103yasukuni00521xl2.JPG
    20050103yasukuni00521xl2.JPG
    86.4 KB · Views: 190
Last edited by a moderator:
So let's forgive all bad deeds just because they've been done before.

If I kill you, it's okay, because people before me have killed others, therefore it isn't that bad, and shouldn't be condemned. We should just say, 'THAT'S IN THE PAST!' and allow everyone to worship at my feet for getting away with it.

Insightful.
 
Koizumi should stop from visiting the shrine, because it cause offence to many people.

Maybe he can feel they are too easily offended, but, he should concede his personal opinion to save the feelings of the others. To carry on visiting, he is like saying deliberately "I don't care that my actions making you feel bad".
 
McTojo, you have very strange logic. Imagine there was a shrine in America that honoured all American military equipment (and I'm not just talking about a "museum", I mean an actual shrine where military equipment is worshiped like a god), and included in this shrine was the Enola Gay and the atomic bombs, and that every year the American President would go an pay his honour at this shrine. Although it would cause massive uproar in Japan because of the inclusion of the Enola Gay and the atomic bombs, by your reasoning it would be ok because it's simply "culture and tradition".

I've no idea why I'm even bothering to take part in this post because, judging by your previous posts you have no intention on having an intelligent, open minded discussion. Although I do hope you keep posting messages like this because it's entertaining to actually read your rediculous, illogical, unsupported, blind opinions.
 
McTojo said:
If the Japanese people, including heads-of-state, decide that Yasukuni is not in their best interest then let the Japanese decide this, not China.

What about telling Japan to stop all trade with all the countries it attacked in WWII in response then ? That would not only inlcude all East Asia, but the USA, UK, Netherlands, France...

Those class-A war criminals that are enshrined at Yasukuni are there because they obeyed the Emperor who acknowledges his involvement in the war according to Herbert Blix " Hirohito and the making of modern Japan."

But the Japanese are taught at school that the emperor had no responsibility in the war. What's more, if he was responsible, now that monarchy has lost the importance it had 60 years ago, the emperor should lose his title and all the Imperial possession should be confiscated.

Now, if we were to contrast this it would be like German PM Schroeder going to visit a shrine in Berlin with Hermann Goering and Hitlers remains inside them, to pay his respects to German war heroes. Would do wonders for Franco-German relations, wouldn't it ? But, remember Hitler and his hordes were bent on the systematic extermination of the Jews which by far was the largest single attempt at the eradication of an entire race of people in history.

You don't seem to know much about what happened in East Asia between 1937 and 1945. Japan has massacred about twice more civilians than Nazi Germany has during WWII. In fact, it could be argued that Japan has killed more foreign civilians than any other country in history (I insist on foreign, otherwise Stalin and Mao have killed as many or more of their own people).

This was Hitler's mission ! He didn't care about natural resources as much as he cared about the annihilation of the JEWS and world domination.

In what way is that more reprehensible than Japan's acts ? Hitler did not exterminate all the Jews, and it could be argued that Japan could have exterminated some Asian countries' (much bigger) population if given time and had they not lost to the US.

The Japanese weren't bent on world domination.

At least on Asian domination, which means 2/3 of the world's population. By attacking the US (which the Nazi did not do), Japan also had plans to conquer at least North America. Hitler had no direct plans for Asia, or even America. Anyway, that's a fact that more Chinese civlians died than Jews in WWII.
 
Bucko said:
McTojo, you have very strange logic. Imagine there was a shrine in America that honoured all American military equipment (and I'm not just talking about a "museum", I mean an actual shrine where military equipment is worshiped like a god), and included in this shrine was the Enola Gay and the atomic bombs, and that every year the American President would go an pay his honour at this shrine. Although it would cause massive uproar in Japan because of the inclusion of the Enola Gay and the atomic bombs, by your reasoning it would be ok because it's simply "culture and tradition".

I've no idea why I'm even bothering to take part in this post because, judging by your previous posts you have no intention on having an intelligent, open minded discussion. Although I do hope you keep posting messages like this because it's entertaining to actually read your rediculous, illogical, unsupported, blind opinions.

You lost me dude... machines and worship don't mix well in any logical discussion. I mean the Enola Gay was and probably still is showcased in the Smithsonian in case you didn't know.
 
So, basically what you're saying McTojo is that if I want to go and piss on your grave one day, as long as I think it's ok and I can rally enough of my countrymen behind me, then it doesn't matter one bit what you or anyone else thinks about it because frankly it's none of your damn business.

Extreme example I know, but you're not really making much more sense yourself.
 
Silverpoint said:
So, basically what you're saying McTojo is that if I want to go and piss on your grave one day, as long as I think it's ok and other people agree with me, then it doesn't matter one bit what you or anyone else thinks about it because frankly it's none of your damn business.

Sure, it would be okay if I were buried in your hometown. The Japanese in Japan are honouring their war dead on Japanese soil in a Japanese shrine in Japan, not China
 
So if you fell in battle in a country other than your own, and were buried there, you'd be totally fine with my actions.
 
McTojo said:
If the Japanese people, including heads-of-state, decide that Yasukuni is not in their best interest then let the Japanese decide this, not China.

Despite the fact that there are a significant number of Japanese that would like to see an end to Koizumi's visits?

Most Japanese could careless about what happened sixty years ago and neither should the world...why ? The answer is simple. Japan did no better nor worse than any other industrialized nation or superpower.

I disagree. Whether they are apologists, or feel disgusted and appalled at what happened in WW2, there are a lot of Japanese who feel strongly about what happened 60 years ago.


It's so easy to point the finger at Japan, an island nation that arose from the ashes of two atomic bombings; a nation that has become the second strongest economy in the world and a hallmark of western civilization with a Democracy that actually works.

And this was all down to the Japanese people, who rebuilt the country on their own with absolutely no assistance from any foreign power. Join the real world man, or at least read an accurate history book.

Those class-A war criminals that are enshrined at Yasukuni are there because they obeyed the Emperor who acknowledges his involvement in the war according to Herbert Blix " Hirohito and the making of modern Japan."

They followed orders? Oh well... that makes it ok then.

Now, if we were to contrast this it would be like German PM Schroeder going to visit a shrine in Berlin with Hermann Goering and Hitlers remains inside them, to pay his respects to German war heroes. Would do wonders for Franco-German relations, wouldn't it ?

Doesn't this completely undermine your own argument? You're pointing out the fundamental misjudgement of a German leader who would do this, but at the same time supporting Koizumi when he endevours to do similar.

But, remember Hitler and his hordes were bent on the systematic extermination of the Jews which by far was the largest single attempt at the eradication of an entire race of people in history.
This was Hitler's mission ! He didn't care about natural resources as much as he cared about the annihilation of the JEWS and world domination.

I don't disagree.

The Japanese weren't bent on world domination. If that were true then after Pearl Harbour Japan would of continued her push to the mainland and eventually annexed California, but who knows...right ? No, matter how awful Nanking was the Japanese were not on a mission to annihilate the Chinese.
Sure, blind allegiance may of led them to commit acts of savage murder but that was for fun and to regale their friends with stories of conquest in asia. These soldiers were given a hereos welcome upon returning to Japan and awarded metals of valour for courage .

And your point is what exactly? Killing for fun is ok....!? Or maybe you could correct me because I can't see what else you're saying here.

In the end, it should be left up to the Japanese to decide the fate of Yasukuni and not the Chinese who were the victims because if that's the case then we should issue out subpoena's to every industrialized nation for commiting some barbaric act of murder at some point in history along long time ago...boohoo...Nobody ever cried for the 70,000 plus Rwandan's who were murdered and the list goes on and on... The future Japan

Someone should have cried, but it just shows the hypocrisy of the modern world when it comes to selecting who should be tried, who should be condemned and who should be ignored. Regardless, it still doesn't make it right.
 
Last edited:
And the fun starts again...

Just to let you know, the arguments you are presenting your viewpoint are certainly not getting any better. In fact, not only are they getting worse, but they also betray your lack of respect for people (even the Japanese, whom you wish to hold in a secluded stasis isolated from the global community). I suggest you seriously rethink your position.

McTojo said:
Even more so than that, Japanese culture treats all dead people as innocent, so the respectable visit to Yasukuni is no business to other countries. There were people like Takamori Saigo and others who were not forgiven to be in the Yasukuni, but that is merely a domestic mistake made in Japan, and that does not change the idea of forgiven ancestors.

No business to other countries? These were and are war criminals, people who have knowingly committed horrendous deeds to individuals in other countries. Koizumi knows this, yet he still visits the shrine. In fact, he also has the knowledge that what he is doing is angering other countries. Is it really to the benefit of Japan that he's pushing Japan farther and farther away from others?

That Japanese culture treats all dead as innocent does not mean everyone else should follow that same mindset. That this affects other nations suggests that the Japanese ought to take into consideration their actions on others, too. This is not simply a domestic matter.

Everybody has the right to pay respects to their fallen leaders no matter how evil or heinous they were. People still pay respect to Idi Amin , a man who was never tried in a court of law; a man who murdered close to a million Asians and Africans.

What people? And not only do you need to provide sufficient evidence, you also need to justify the morality of paying these respects, aside from saying that it's people's rights. So what is it?

I've also noticed in this example that you include the fact that since others have done similar actions, that makes it ok. This is morality at one if its lower points.

What kind of message are we trying to send here ? Are we saying that if a criminal court deems a man a War Criminal or a Genocidal Murderer we can't honor that person as a countryman of our nationality if we agree with his actions ?

So the truth of my first statement in this post holds once again. Not only are your arguments betraying your poor process of thought, it also betrays your utter contempt for humanity.

Does the judges gavel have a rubber stamp at the end of it that says " This man is Bad forever, and if you pay homage to him and the ideals he stood for then you're a criminal too"?

Sorry, we don't exist on the same level of morality as you here. Whether a judge rules it Bad or Good holds no sway for me, or, I would imagine, for the others here.


The point is is that Japan should honor its war dead and they should be honored at Yasukuni Jinjya which stands for "Peace." Now, there are many Japanese who oppose having their loved one's buried there because of matters pertaining to Buddhism and Shintoism, and of course, the negative stigma of Class-A war criminals but keep in mind also that there are no remains in the Shrine itself of any war criminals.

Source?


If the Japanese people, including heads-of-state, decide that Yasukuni is not in their best interest then let the Japanese decide this, not China.

Another poor argument on very murky morality grounds. This is not about doing things in Japan's best interest. This is not doing things in China's best interst. This is not doing things in America's best interest. This is about doing things in the international community's long-term best interest.

Most Japanese could careless about what happened sixty years ago and neither should the world...why ? The answer is simple. Japan did no better nor worse than any other industrialized nation or superpower.

That Japanese officials are denying the importance of the visits to Yasukuni is indication that Japan is in fact doing worse than other industrialized nations.


It's so easy to point the finger at Japan, an island nation that arose from the ashes of two atomic bombings; a nation that has become the second strongest economy in the world and a hallmark of western civilization with a Democracy that actually works.

I don't understand what you're saying here. We're not criticizing Japan out of envy, if that's what you're suggesting. In fact, I wonder if the quoted passage is at all founded on any basis?

Those class-A war criminals that are enshrined at Yasukuni are there because they obeyed the Emperor who acknowledges his involvement in the war according to Herbert Blix " Hirohito and the making of modern Japan."

Sure, they obeyed the Emperor. But the only thing really admirable about this is the loyalty, but even that is questionable because it's blind loyalty without questioning the morality of it. At best they were mere pawns who served because they were told to. And let's not forget that their actions were unnecessarily cruel.

Now, if we were to contrast this it would be like German PM Schroeder going to visit a shrine in Berlin with Hermann Goering and Hitlers remains inside them, to pay his respects to German war heroes. Would do wonders for Franco-German relations, wouldn't it ? But, remember Hitler and his hordes were bent on the systematic extermination of the Jews which by far was the largest single attempt at the eradication of an entire race of people in history.
This was Hitler's mission ! He didn't care about natural resources as much as he cared about the annihilation of the JEWS and world domination.

Really don't get what you're saying. Isn't this in fact undermining your point?

The Japanese weren't bent on world domination. If that were true then after Pearl Harbour Japan would of continued her push to the mainland and eventually annexed California, but who knows...right ? No, matter how awful Nanking was the Japanese were not on a mission to annihilate the Chinese.

You're juxtaposing two different things: world conquest and conquest of China. In fact, I'm not sure what this point is even trying to prove.


Sure, blind allegiance may of led them to commit acts of savage murder but that was for fun and to regale their friends with stories of conquest in asia. These soldiers were given a hereos welcome upon returning to Japan and awarded metals of valour for courage .

This is the last time I'm going to say this. Just because another person encourages and rewards your actions does not mean it's intrinsically good. It just means it's been approved by others. And for what reason? Japan's best interest. Not anybody else's best interest. I wouldn't say courage. What is courage? It's more than the ability to step into the crossfires, it's also the ability to say what is right and what is wrong.

And here you've just reduced that issue to something for "fun and regal[ing] their friends with stories of conquest in Asia." Good job.

In the end, it should be left up to the Japanese to decide the fate of Yasukuni and not the Chinese who were the victims because if that's the case then we should issue out subpoena's to every industrialized nation for commiting some barbaric act of murder at some point in history along long time ago...boohoo...Nobody ever cried for the 70,000 plus Rwandan's who were murdered and the list goes on and on... The future Japan

It's not just about the act, it's also about the ability to take responsibility and become a mature nation in the face of growing internationalization. That Japan has not yet indicates it still has a lot to learn. Those who defend Japan's actions are not benefiting Japan in the slightest, but keeping them from growing.


Stuff I was referencing.
 
McTojo said:
You lost me dude... machines and worship don't mix well in any logical discussion.

But it's irrelivant whether or not you understand "why" they would go and worship the guns and equipment because, as you're implying in your own arguement, it's part of culture and tradition, which makes it ok. It was an extreme example but the only one I could think of which would be as extreme and insulting as Yasukuni.
 
Maciamo said:
But the Japanese are taught at school that the emperor had no responsibility in the war. What's more, if he was responsible, now that monarchy has lost the importance it had 60 years ago, the emperor should lose his title and all the Imperial possession should be confiscated.

Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but this is something that the U.S. should take responsibility for. The Emperor was used by the U.S. politically and socially in the reconstruction of Japan, and that is why he was absolved of responsibility, though he lost a large part of his moral authority when he was humanized. As I'm sure everyone is aware, as part of Japan's geostrategic role in the Cold War, the US allowed a host of class A war criminals into politics, perhaps resulting in the LDP's (and Koizumi's) attraction towards Yasukuni? Maybe this explains why the US has been relatively quiet on this front?
 
Maciamo said:
In addition, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni Shrine to be unconstitutional 2 weeks ago. But that did not prevent him to visit the Shrine for the 5th year in a row today. I think he is really trying to be provocative, defying the Supreme Court just after it told him to stop. Is that his way of showing that he is above the system, above both national and international criticism ?
I happened to catch an NHK radio poll today that found the country is virtually split, with 43% urging Koikumi to continue and 45% wishing he would stop. I thought in the past these visits were mostly to placate the Families of the War Dead, but now I'm not so sure. There are Buddhists that
may protest their ancestors buried in a shrine, having the Class A War criminals housed with them only compounds the controversy without anything positive or productive coming of it. There's no doubt he's a maverick politician who may feel validated now by the strong recent election results as well as the court decision. :?
 
Index said:
Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but this is something that the U.S. should take responsibility for. The Emperor was used by the U.S. politically and socially in the reconstruction of Japan, and that is why he was absolved of responsibility, though he lost a large part of his moral authority when he was humanized. As I'm sure everyone is aware, as part of Japan's geostrategic role in the Cold War, the US allowed a host of class A war criminals into politics, perhaps resulting in the LDP's (and Koizumi's) attraction towards Yasukuni? Maybe this explains why the US has been relatively quiet on this front?

I think I was the one to raise this issue of war crimininals (like Kishi Nobusuke or Kodama Yoshio) who were "forgiven" by the US because they were useful to fight the advance of communism.

As for the emperor, of course Hirohito died 16 years ago and can't be punished anymore. But the Imperial family still exist and still wields some influence in business and politics. The US kept Hirohito to facilitate the transition to the new US-imposed system; but now that the system is firmly established (even difficult to reform), there is no need for the imperial family anymore.
 
Maciamo said:
I think I was the one to raise this issue of war crimininals (like Kishi Nobusuke or Kodama Yoshio) who were "forgiven" by the US because they were useful to fight the advance of communism.

Yes I'm sure you were the first one to have discovered this issue. Ever tried references other than Wikipedia?
 
Back
Top Bottom