Japan, a liberal democratic country, fought the Second Sino-Japanese War and Pacific War as a war of self-defense against the indirect aggression by the fanatic Soviet Russia and subsequent aggression by the irrational U.S./UK, and lost.
The tragic but logical consequence was the communist take over of the East Asia and the consequencial byproduct was the emancipation of the whole Asia and eventually the whole world from the colonialism of the West.
The astronomical number of Chinese people starved to death and killed by Mao, as well as the tragedies of, for example, Korean War and Vietnam Wars and the Gulag country whose name is North Korea, all of which could have been avoided.
Post WWII U.S. simply adopted Japan’s pre WWII policy containing the Soviet Russia.
Besides, forget about the cruelty of Japanese soldiers, since U.S. soldiers and Chinese soldiers were equally cruel.
In any case, the crime of U.S. government’s cruelty should be especially accused, who intentionally targeted Japanese citizens during the WWII by firebombing and nuking Japanese cities, buchering more than 300 thousand people.
Japan was a thriving democratic country during WWII …which was a war of self-defence. … Wow. Nice try. I have heard that view. In fact, Yasukuni Shrine has a museum dedicated to that revisionist view of history.
History is full of cruelties and injustices. But to try to get yourself off the hook by saying others were worse is childish. The Rape of Nanjing happened. That is a historical fact along with the colonization by Western powers.
As far as the circumstantial evidences tell us, the essence of the so called Nanjing massacre was the execution of Chinese POWs (definattely less than 50,000) at the suburbs of Nanjing by Japanese troops.
More Japanese POWｓ, died during detention in Siberia by the Soviet Russia ‘after’ the War.
Both were illegal.
I am talking about the slaughter of the civilians.
＜Kate the Cursed＞
Well, if the ESSENCE of it was just some POWs I suppose the other 200,000 or so dead just don’t matter.
You should not believe what Mr. Assad is talking about the recent chemical attack in Syria.
China is not a liberal democracy after all.
Mr. Ota, what’s your point? Japan committed no war crimes and other (fanatical) countries (irrationally) inflicted them upon Japan? The invasion of Manchuria was self-defence? Or was Japan kindly emancipating the rest of Asia from the West? …whatever. ・・・
If Soviet Russia were located in Mexico and were invading Cuba by its proxies, the U.S. would have made Cuba its protectorate.
Cuba WAS a US protectorate (or the moral equivalent thereof) until the Cuban Revolution. The US chose not to start WW3 over it.
Japan invaded Manchuria because they wanted the territory. Admit it and move on.
I do not buy the historical analogy.
O＜ｈ＞ta, if you want something more tangible from history, the US established the Monroe Doctrine in the early 1800’s to let the newly independent states of Central & South America to develop without being part of a the European world struggle for more colonization. That was the original intent, though Teddy Roosevelt changed it later.
The Japanese staged an incident as a pretext to invade and completely subjugate Manchuria. The Japanese were brutal. It was a land grab to get resources and become a “great nation.” It’s a long story.
Let me give you my perspective as an American who has lived in Japan for some time.
From a realpolitik point of view, it doesn’t matter why things happened, but what the results were.
Japan attempted colonization of much of Asia. This colonization was not well received by the local populations. Japan went to war (whether they were maneuvered into this by the US is irrelevant. Japan had a choice and chose to start a war). Japan lost, badly.
First, the victors write history. Whether or not your viewpoint is true, it is not going to be accepted by anybody outside of the right-wing community in Japan. The war is over and attempting to revise that history merely causes more strife and needless distraction from real problems and issues. It makes it very difficult for Japan be an international leader, especially within Asia, because other Asian nations remember WW2 and see an unrepentant Japan trying to rewrite history and return to the days of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”.
Japan’s major threat today is a militarizing China. An Asian arms race is in no one’s best interests. Rather than attempting to match Chinese nationalism, I think that Japan should take a position of moral superiority and loudly and continually challenge China on their militarization and ask why China needs power projection when Japan has renounced that. A sincere apology for WW2 costs nothing and would prevent the Chinese from continuing to bang the drum of being the victim of WW2.
Japan’s involvement in WW2 was based on a massive miscalculation. It ended with the country in ruins. Has Japan learned anything from this? Based on what is taught to Japanese children in school, I would say no. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
＜Ju wapo_provider=Google; slate_avatar=＞
Speaking as a German, those who misremember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Germany started a horrible war and Germans committed numerous horrible atrocities during that war, and most Germans alive today will admit this.
Japan never attempted colonization per se.
The colonization of Taiwan and Korea was done reluctantly because there was no other option to deter Russian (later Soviet Russian) threat against Japan and East Asia.
Besides, the legacy of Japanese colonial rule brought about eventually the liberal democracy and prosperity of Taiwan and South Korea.
(Compare this with the present state of Philippines or India/Pakistan etc.)
Japan’s War with the U.S. and UK could be comparable to the Greek resistance against the invasion of Persia.
They won, and Japan lost.
But Japan achieved most of its war aims.
The U.S. began deterring Soviet Russia, trade became free, and the world was emancipated from Western egoistic colonialism, and Japan could continue its fantastic economic growth of pre WWII, becoming an economic superpower.
Go ask a Korean what they think about Japanese colonization. The Taiwanese had a relatively benevolent governor installed and have better feelings toward Japan than most of the other countries that were invaded.
Reluctant colonization is tripe. Japan wanted territory and resources. Be honest with yourself about what happened.
If you believe that WW2 was beneficial for Japan you are psychotic. Over 2 million soldiers were killed, over half a million civilians. It was an epic disaster.
As for what happened after the war, Japan was fortunate enough to lose to the United States. Consider what would have happened if the Soviets had taken over Japan, or the Chinese.
If one benefits by someone’s non-egoistic act, he tends to have grudge against this benefactor.
That is the mentality of the present Korean people, and I heartily have sympathy for them.
The U.S. had no option after WWII but to ‘nurture’ and utilize both Japan and (West ) Germany as 2 bulwarks against Soviet Russia and its communist empire.
「イプシロンはＩＣＢＭ？ 韓国紙 突出した反日報道・・・」
「菊の御紋に日本の格言も引用 ケネディ次期駐日大使が演説 指名後初・・・」
・・・There were signs Wednesday that the Syrian strongman has already begun reacting to the talk coming out of Washington about the potential targets of a U.S. strike. Reuters reported that Assad’s forces appeared to have evacuated most of their personnel from several key army, air force, and security headquarters buildings in central Damascus. Those are precisely the kinds of military compounds U.S. cruise missiles would reportedly be sent to destroy. ・・・
・・・It is not realistic to put legal constraints on war powers. Law works through general prospective rules that apply to a range of factual situations. International relations and national security are too fluid and unpredictable to be governed by a set of legal propositions that command general assent secured in advance. Laws governing war make us feel more secure but they don’t actually make us more secure. So while it is satisfying to fling the charge of hypocrisy at the president and his lawyers, and we might disagree about the wisdom of an attack on Syria, let’s just hope that when they invoke the law, they don’t actually believe what they are saying.