It's NOT a crime to visit Yasukuni Shrine !

[McTojo]

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.




__________________

[Pierrot le Fou]

"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?

[名無し]

Ex-Taiwan Leader Lee Backs Koizumi's Visits to Yasukuni (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20051017a1.htm)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Ex-Taiwan Leader Lee Backs Koizumi's Visits to Yasukuni (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20051017a1.htm)
'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.

[Maciamo]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminal), 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.

[McTojo]

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...

[Pierrot le Fou]

Neither I nor Maciamo are Chinese. Nor communists.

[McTojo]

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

[Pierrot le Fou]

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.

[Kinsao]

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".

[Bucko]

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.

[Maciamo]

In addition, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni Shrine to be unconstitutional (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20051001a1.htm) 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 ?

[Maciamo]

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 (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16290) (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.

[McTojo]

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.

[Silverpoint]

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.

[McTojo]

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

[Silverpoint]

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.

[Silverpoint]

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.

[lastmagi]

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.

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. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development)

[Gaijinian]

またおまえかい・・・ :okashii:

[Bucko]

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.

[Index]

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?

[Elizabeth]

In addition, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni Shrine to be unconstitutional (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20051001a1.htm) 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. :?

[Maciamo]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishi_Nobusuke) or Kodama Yoshio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshio_Kodama)) 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.

[Index]

I think I was the one to raise this issue of war crimininals (like Kishi Nobusuke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishi_Nobusuke) or Kodama Yoshio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshio_Kodama)) 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?

[Bucko]

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

Umm, I don't think he meant he actually discovered the issue. You can raise an issue that has already been discovered. As for Wikipedia, the good thing about that website is that it has multiple reference to back up its information. It's probably one of the best reference points on the web.

[Maciamo]

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

I don't want to spend 10min searching for a good article just to give a few random examples., and Wikipedia is the most convenient and reliable source I know. :p It's in my bookmarks - just type the name I want, and here we go. I used encyclopedia.com before, though.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I will have to second the wikipedia comment. It's an absolutely wonderful resource because it uses so many different sources for its information. I would never use it for a college paper or something of the sort, but as far as getting an idea about an issue, it's hard to top. If you read the discussion pages over contentious issues (I suggest, for instance, you check out the Nanking Massacre's discussion page), you will see that things of questionable validity are really put through the ringer. It's a good resource with flaws, as all resources have. The plus is that it's very comprehensive.

[Bucko]

Discussion on the other threads regarding the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo has lead me to think more about it. I actually think that Kouzumi should continue to visit the shrine simply BECAUSE of the contraversy it causes. If Kouzumi continues to visit it, then China and Korea will keep protesting, and there will be more news reports on Japanese TV about it, which will get people talking, and which will indirectly educate the Japanese public about the atrocities committed by Japan in its past. Once the Japanese public understands better what actually happened then there is no way the constitution will be revised because the people simply would not allow it.

If Kouzumi et al want to revise the consitition, then wouldn't it be wiser to keep such negative aspects of Japan's past as far out of the public mind as possible, and therefore not do anything that might spark public debate (such as visiting the shrine)?

[lexico]

Bucko, you are offering a very interesting conspiration theory- while I have not the evidence to either support or refute your thesis, it does appear to make some sense, that is assuming a higher level of thinking than what is immediately possible to observe on the surface.

If the intention of Koizumi's Yasukuni visits were indeed to foster continuing debate on the revisionist-whitewashing of Japan's militarist past to the effect of preventing deeper corruption, that is not such a hugely impossible task if done right. PM Koizumi becoming the foul guy for the future of Japan would be considered honorable, although the method would be considered highly unconventional.

The only problem is; why not take the shorter, less painful path, and take the thorny path of controversy ? Would it not benefit Japan many more times to take up the historical responsibility in a straightforward manner ? Although controversy is not all counterproductive, there are huge losses on all sides of the debate, not to mention the huge political loss that he/the LDP will have to suffer as a result of the controversy should his plans go well as intended. Because he will not have left a track record of willful acceptance of war-time responsibilities and post-war responsibilities, he will lose the voters' trust who will have accepted the facts. Another problem that would arise would be the victims/survivors who did not get the recognition they deserved, legally, and socially. When they die out, any chance of making peace and reparation that is satisfactory is all lost. That is the greatest loss that no money can ever remedy.

However, I am not totally against your theory because an extreme situation can make a person take extreme measures accordingly. We just have to prove it with more hard work. Let's see how it goes, evidence, reasoning, past history since 1978 and all.

[Tokyo-K1]

All in all I believe the visit by Koizumi is a bad move, both morally and diplomatically.
What happened in the past should remain in the past and we should all move forward together. Angering Japan's neighbours would both hurt relations and financial ties, China is Japan's largest trading partner and annoying China over something rooted in the WWII conflict is not in Japan's best interests or the stability of Asia for that matter.

Maybe what is need here is not the notion that one countries "debt" can be fully repaid in full, that is not to say that Japan should keep its head down forever but rather it should accept its wrongs in the past, to remember them constantly and avoid a tragic repeat of history. That goes for any other country, because lets face it, there is not one country in the world that have not commited "wrongs" in the past.
If we all carry this element of humility then the world would have less conflicts.

What Koizumi is trying to do I think is that he wants Japan to "start a new blank slate" that is to wipe Japan clean of it's "debt" and responsibilities for crimes commited in its past. Already there are talks within the government ranks of Japan of becoming a "normal country" again and rebuild it's military force to shift away from the current stance of strict pacifism.
I believe this concept is highly materialistic and in the wrong direction. A nation's armed forces should be used as a self defence force, and plus you cannot just wipe the grief of millions on millions off massacred lives of the board like they're figures from the previous financial year. We must all bear/remember burdens and lessons from the past in order to progress. Isn't there a Japanese saying "Learn from the past"

[McTojo]

All in all I believe the visit by Koizumi is a bad move, both morally and diplomatically.
What happened in the past should remain in the past and we should all move forward together. Angering Japan's neighbours would both hurt relations and financial ties, China is Japan's largest trading partner and annoying China over something rooted in the WWII conflict is not in Japan's best interests or the stability of Asia for that matter.

Maybe what is need here is not the notion that one countries "debt" can be fully repaid in full, that is not to say that Japan should keep its head down forever but rather it should accept its wrongs in the past, to remember them constantly and avoid a tragic repeat of history. That goes for any other country, because lets face it, there is not one country in the world that have not commited "wrongs" in the past.
If we all carry this element of humility then the world would have less conflicts.

What Koizumi is trying to do I think is that he wants Japan to "start a new blank slate" that is to wipe Japan clean of it's "debt" and responsibilities for crimes commited in its past. Already there are talks within the government ranks of Japan of becoming a "normal country" again and rebuild it's military force to shift away from the current stance of strict pacifism.
I believe this concept is highly materialistic and in the wrong direction. A nation's armed forces should be used as a self defence force, and plus you cannot just wipe the grief of millions on millions off massacred lives of the board like they're figures from the previous financial year. We must all bear/remember burdens and lessons from the past in order to progress. Isn't there a Japanese saying "Learn from the past"

Yes, but in no way should that mean Japan should remain a pacifist nation.
Neither does it mean that China should continue to nurse grudges either . Japan has learned from the past and that's why she has progressed over the years as a model asian nation.

It's fine to make suggestion about what a country should be like or how she should remain but I believe that it's the Japanese who want to determine their destiny now.

[McTojo]

Discussion on the other threads regarding the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo has lead me to think more about it. I actually think that Kouzumi should continue to visit the shrine simply BECAUSE of the contraversy it causes. If Kouzumi continues to visit it, then China and Korea will keep protesting, and there will be more news reports on Japanese TV about it, which will get people talking, and which will indirectly educate the Japanese public about the atrocities committed by Japan in its past. Once the Japanese public understands better what actually happened then there is no way the constitution will be revised because the people simply would not allow it.)?

Have you ever been to Yasukuni ? You should go...actually, the assertion you made about the constitution not being revised once the Japanese public understands better what actually happened is a subjective statement. There are millions of Japanese who understand the historical stigma that's tied to Yasukuni and yet they still go. Two million of those same people support the shrine monetarily and respect the fact that Koizumi visits the shrine and that's a fact and it cannot be refuted by wikipedia or any other sources.

If Kouzumi et al want to revise the consitition, then wouldn't it be wiser to keep such negative aspects of Japan's past as far out of the public mind as possible, and therefore not do anything that might spark public debate (such as visiting the shrine)?

If Koizumi want so revise the constitution then he will regardless of public opinion. Koizumi is a man of strong resolve who has proven that he can get the job done. If you haven't already noticed Mr. Koizumi always gets his way.
He got his way when he dispatched SDF troops to Iraq which was clearly in violation of the constitution; he got his way when passing his controversial postal reform bill and he will get his way again on a number of other issues.

[Maciamo]

There are millions of Japanese who understand the historical stigma that's tied to Yasukuni and yet they still go. Two million of those same people support the shrine monetarily and respect the fact that Koizumi visits the shrine and that's a fact and it cannot be refuted by wikipedia or any other sources.

I have been many times to Yasukuni-jinja. But as a tourist (my Japanese happened to be a few hundreds meters from there). I didn't pay homage or made monetary donation to anybody. The problem is not to go there. It is indeed not a crime to visit the shrine. The 2 issues are :

1) it's unconstitutional for politicians to visit it (especially in group as they usually do, as it makes it look like an official visit) and especially make donations using their government account (=tax money), as PM Koizumi did.

2) Even if the constitution allowed the visits (were it to be changed), politicians paying homage to war criminals will naturally governments and citizens of the victi countries. This is not desirable for Japan, for its neighbours, and for peace and good relations in East Asia.

So stop bringing in irrelevant arguments such as the number of annual visitors (how many tourists like me coming to see the cherry blossom of Chidorigafuchi just opposite ?) or that some ordinary people support the Prime Ministers's visits. 2 million visitors is actually very few for a population of 128 million. The 35 million residents of the Greater Tokyo would have no excuse about the distance.

Koizumi is a man of strong resolve who has proven that he can get the job done.

What's the relevance ? Job done for what ? The Japanese economy has not really go better in his 4-year term. In fact, his term (like Bush's term) will be mostly remembered abroad for deteriorating foreign relations by his irresponsible behaviour. No wonder he is such a good friend of Bush Jr. !


He got his way when he dispatched SDF troops to Iraq which was clearly in violation of the constitution

This was clearly against the will of the majority of the population (as the Japanese media claimed). Koizumi, like Bush, often gets his way because he has the top job. It doesn't mean he is right. Both the yen and the US dollar are at their lowest against the euro in the last 5 years. The yen has lost about 50% of its value against the euro since I arrived in Japan. Koizumi certainly gets the job done.

[lexico]

Yes, but in no way should that mean Japan should remain a pacifist nation.By denying the Japanese Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_constitution), Article no. 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Constitution_of_Japan), are you saying Japan should return to militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_militarism) ?

Under Article 9 of the constitution "the Japanese people renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation". To this end the article provides that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained". However the courts have ruled that Japan may raise an army, navy and air force provided it is used for the purposes of self-defenceJapan already has the SDF for defense on/in ground, air, and sea to be used only if Japan is provoked in an attack arising from the outside. The SDF of Japan with 5 Aegis Carriers is already an exorbitant over-kill for defending a small piece of land no more than 374,744 square kilometres. Japan can never provoke again- that was the deal of The Sanfrancisco Peace Treaty 1952. Honor it to the spirit, to the letter !
Neither does it mean that China should continue to nurse grudges either.Nurse grudges ? Legal grievance is hardly grudge; your language is in contempt not only of the Japanese Constitution in effect but also of the Chinese victims of Imperial Japanese aggression and all who suffered due to Imperial Japan; the number exceeds 100 million in Asia and abroad.Japan has learned from the past...Prove it.and that's why she has progressed over the years as a model asian nation.Model Asian nation in what ? When and in what was this "model behaviour" demonstrated exactly ?It's fine to make suggestion about what a country should be like or how she should remain but I believe that it's the Japanese who want to determine their destiny now.You are very right about that; should the Japanese voters and legislator make the ill-willed move, I believe there is sufficient cause to believe that the fate of Japan will be sealed due to it. Japan's voters and legistlators shall proceed with extreme caution.

[lastmagi]

Well... Apologies everyone for past and possible future delays in my responses. I'm trying not to let these debates get in the way of my academics.

Yes, but in no way should that mean Japan should remain a pacifist nation.

Does backing away from further disrespect of other nations necessitate a kind of pacifism that you seem to deem as being weak and "giving in"? I doubt such actions could be so polarized.

Neither does it mean that China should continue to nurse grudges either . Japan has learned from the past and that's why she has progressed over the years as a model asian nation.

Has Japan really learned from its past? Is it a model Asian nation, in the context we've been describing (not that I'm saying such a thing as a "model Asian nation" necessarily exists, mind you; in fact, saying that is downright patronizing)? Sources? Evidence?

It's fine to make suggestion about what a country should be like or how she should remain but I believe that it's the Japanese who want to determine their destiny now.

And should they do it blindly, with little respect for other nations? Should they do it purely with their own short-term self-interests in mind?

There are millions of Japanese who understand the historical stigma that's tied to Yasukuni and yet they still go. Two million of those same people support the shrine monetarily and respect the fact that Koizumi visits the shrine and that's a fact and it cannot be refuted by wikipedia or any other sources.

So? Does the fact that these people visit it make your argument any stronger?

Remember that Japan, by continuing to be insensitive to its neighbors is not simply flexing its nationalistic muscles, which you seem to persist in cheering on. It is also bit by bit furthering its own denial of morality and human decency. It's dehumanizing itself by its rejection of understanding of some basic principles of maturity and responsibility. There's much more to being a mature, responsibile nation than empowering its people against the harsh, dictatorial oppression of other nations (I'm being ironic here). That's the stereotypical "tough guy" road, and we all know how smart that strategy is.