What the F are you talking about? Are we talking about US or Japan? Ever heard of establishment clause in the Constitution? Pull your head out of your azz, will you.
Yeah... Maybe you need to think about what I wrote a little bit more? Because I promise you that there a point there that apparently you are missing. I mean, the establishment clause exists, but name the last president of the USA who didn't attend a Christian Christmas ceremony. It's a trick question because you can't. People, especially dull, superstitious ones, vote for politicians who demonstrate behaviors that they feel represent them. Maybe you should just sit back and imagine for a little bit that you've just been elected Prime Minister of Japan, and the Chinese are screaming at you to not go pay your respects to the war dead at the shrine of what is effectively the state religion. Tell me exactly the plus and minuses of each option of conduct. If you really put a little effort into it, you might get a little insight. You might also understand why the louder the Chinese yell, the more the Prime Minister has to keep going back. BTW, anybody remember when the Ronald Reagan and German Chancelor Helmut Kohl attended a ceremony in Bitburg in a graveyard full of dead Waffen SS? Here's what Reagan had to say: [rquoter] These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps. [/rquoter] Good times.
Was it also good times after America offered Unit 731 members immunity in return for the "scientific gains" they achieved by vivisecting live humans? Also, did Kohl lead a faction of politicians who denied the Holocaust existed?
What the F! Japanese political figures attend the Shrine is not the same as the presidents attending Sunday churches. Are you telling me that German chancellor can go to a memorial that commemorate dead Nazis for religious reasons just like the US president attending churches. I don't know where to end with you. Get this once again, the Japanese government figures in their political functions have no business in visiting the shrine that houses war criminal. If they do, they need to identify a private reason for the visit like the US presidents attending Sunday church with their families.
Well, then, since they are doing it on personal time, and not as an official state visit, you don't have a problem with it. Glad to know you agree with me.
The United States does exactly that. The difference is that we won the war. Do you think there are no people in Arlington National Cemetery that participated in the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden? Do you think no one that is buried in the Civil War section from either side ever mistreated a prisoner (keeping in mind that one of the most famous American war crimes cases related to Andersonville)? That is where we honor the fallen soldiers who served this country. Most were good people, some were not. That doesn't mean that the President can't go there and pay his respects. China has a place dedicated to Mao. Even if you want to excuse the starvation deaths (which I personally do not agree with) he is responsible for more deaths than the Japanese during WWII. That doesn't even take into account the political imprisonment of dissidents. Clearly there are other countries then that have places which at least include monstrous people. To pretend that the Japanese having a shrine to their war dead is some sort of grave injustice is preposterous. If Germany had a memorial commemorating fallen soldiers and it included Nazi's, no, I would not have a problem with it. The memorial would be about the sacrifices people made who fought and died for their country. That one tenth of one percent of those people were monstrous would not make me think less of the German Chancellor if she paid a visit to the memorial to pay respect to the German soldiers throughout history. Here is a list of war apologies made by the government of Japan. Feel free to continue ignoring the facts to cling to your hatred of the Japanese.
Keep in mind though that its not just issue regarding Imperial Japan's actions that is causing tension between the PRC and Japan. There are several other issues such as the Diao Yu Tai / Senkaku Islands, some other territorial issues along with trade issues. Its why polls show a fair degree of negative feelings among Chinese about America and vice versa but in general the Chinese people and American people get along and like each other. (Georgetown basketball games excepted. ) For what its worth. I am frequently mistaken for being Japanese when I am in Asia and haven't noticed any particular hostility when in China. No one is talking about going to war with Japan over these particular issues and these issues haven't prevented Japanese investments, business partnerships and tourism throughout Asia. What it comes down to is that it would be a good thing for Japan to change its behavior in this regard that would be welcomed. Following again the example of South Carolina flying the Confederate battle flag on the State Capital. The rest of America is welcoming to South Carolinians and will visit and do business with the state. South Carolina isn't a bad state. That said it would be good thing for them to reconsider flying the battle flag and a move that most of America would welcome.
I don't know this for a fact but I suspect that people convicted of war crimes aren't buried at Arlington. In Yasukuni there are people who have been convicted of class A war crimes. So while yes American troops have done barbaric things I doubt that any of them compare to the systemic and not just sanctioned but encouraged brutality of the Japanese Imperial Army. Also keep in mind that the brutality of the US Civil War was 80 years before the Rape of Nanking. We are talking about events that are in the lifetime of people still living not some ancient history. And once again the relevance of that to those not from the PRC? Sure and those countries are criticized too. Since Otto brought up Reagan going to Bitburg, a war ceremony that had SS troops buried there, he was also roundly criticized for that move. I suspect those whose people suffered under the Nazis would think differently. So I presume when Elie Wiesel criticized Reagan for visiting Bitburg you would tell him the same thing. Even so Germany has done far far more than Japan has in regard to their wartime history. In case you missed I started off this thread saying it was a good thing that the current Japanese PM hasn't visited Yakusuni. I give Japan credit for their recent moves to apologize in recent years for their wartime behavior. The words "Never Forget, Never Forgive" are frequently applied to the Holocaust. Considering the horror that the Japanese Imperial Army brought those words should apply too and the memory of that brutality whether it was to Chinese in Nanjing or US Soldiers in Bataan should never be forgotten.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but the US et al won WWII and the Japanese and Germans lost. Who do you think prosecuted who for war crimes? Did you just miss the references to the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo? Is it somehow worse for the losing side to visit a place that includes bad people than for the winning side to do so? Were Japan not soundly defeated there is no way the IMTFE could have existed. Would that have made the Rape of Nanking okay? History is written by the victors. The US annihilated civilian targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that is not a war crime because we won. If Japan had destroyed San Fran, whoever ordered that would have been prosecuted. Much is made of Unit 731. It was the US that prevented their prosecution. Much as the US accepted some Nazi scientists because of the contributions they could make. They are not less monstrous that those who were prosecuted, but they are not convicted war criminals because the US got something out of them. If only they were included in the shrine, would it then be okay to visit? Is it the legal classification that is important? Your distinction seems to imply that it would be okay. Also, would it be okay to visit after the last person born before 1945 dies? After another 80 years have passed so WWII is as old as the civil war is now? It was another in a list of countries that has a shrine to bad people. In that particular case a shine entirely dedicated to one very bad person. It is also the country that seems to be the most opposed to Yasakuni. If it makes you feel better, replace Mao with Kim Il-sung and China with North Korea. His numbers aren't as high, but he only had half of Korea to work with. He is still on display in a glass coffin so far as I know, and revered as the Eternal Leader. Yes, I would have if it was happening now. Germany was split in two and occupied. Of course they have done more. No country has been more apologetic than Germany. Do you think that might have had anything to do with spending decades as an occupied nation that was constantly being reminded of their failings. If Japan had been split in two and occupied by four allied nations and otherwise faced the same circumstances as Germany, the results would probably be more similar. Did you read the list, they haven't only made recent moves to apologize, they started apologizing at the end of the war and haven't stopped since.
umm yes there are good and bad soldiers..like there are good and bad people. But all that is speculation. umm yes there are thousands of dead soldiers here I'm sure some of them were not good people. The difference is in Japan they know for a fact some of those men who are enshrined in their place of worship were personally responsible for some of the most heinous crimes during WWII. You are changing the topic. I said someone like Hitler. Let's say Hitler and some of his top generals or some of the top figures personally responsible for running the death camps. You wouldnt have an issue with these men being worshipped at a memorial? so I'm not saying individuals in the Japanese govt have not made apologies. The collective govt as a whole has never come out with a formal apology. Also if you look at your list one of the most heinous crimes was the Rape of Nanjing. There is no mention in your list of Nanjing and in fact many in Japan still deny it ever happened. LOL.. so now i hate the Japanese? You are so full of crap. Why can't anyone discuss issues with out being accused of stupid things like this crap. You don't know me STUPIDMoniker. I have been to Japan several times and I'm quite fascinated with their culture and their people. Why don't you stop being such a Nazi supporter and worshiper?
So your argument is really about relativism that since other countries do it, including us and we won WWII, then its OK that the Japanese do it. Really you would tell Elie Wiesel, a man who survived Buchenwald, and has spent a lifetime trying to address the wrongs of the Holocaust that? That its no big deal since other countries also honor horrible people and the SS was just fighting for their country. Except that Japan had been occupied by both the US and USSR, some parts are still occupied by the USSR, also and was greatly constrained by the surrender terms. I've seen that list before and the apologies up until recently were couched in ambiguous terms. Its only recently that the Japanese have made genuine apologies. Also that is still not accounting for some of the things that Northside posted earlier about.
US celebrating winning WWII has never been about glorying the bombings of Tokyo, Dresden and two nukes. War is ugly business. For that reason, I am not a fan of winning side celebrating either. But one cannot get absorbed by the micro-personal tragedies of the war so much that lose the sight of right and wrong. The US celebration of WWII vets is about courage, fortitude, sacrifice for a righteous cause and by comparison the Vietnam war celebration is much more muted. Please don't conflate US's WWII celebration with the Japanese visit of the shrine. That's a disgrace.
It is not speculation. The government knows who firebombed Tokyo. The government has records of who firebombed Dresden. The Government can tell you who dropped the atomic bombs on Japanese cities. It isn't a secret who was in the chain of command ordering these things. None of this is speculative. The difference is not one of knowledge or varying degrees of reprehensibility, the difference is in who came out on top. Hitler was a Nazi. Nazis ARE someone like Hitler. Yes, if Hitler was included in a memorial for all of the fallen soldiers of Germany in a national cemetery, I think the Chancellor could still go to that cemetery. She would not be specifically going to recognize Hitler, he would be a miniscule part of something, and not at all the reason for going there. There have been official apologies made by the Prime Minister on the vote of the government. Your statement is simply counter factual. Nanjing is included in acts of war and acts of imperialism. Why would they apologize only for Nanjing? Wouldn't that exclude the brutal acts committed against the Koreans, or the people from other areas in China, or the prisoners of war, or anyone outside of Nanjing? Your objection is nonsense. You said they have not apologized, they have. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge facts and logic. I am making an educated guess as to your reasoning. Great argument. No wonder you are destroying me so handily. I am not making a value judgment. I am only stating that it is no worse when the Japanese do it. Go ahead and review the thread, I believe all of my arguments have been either statements of personal opinion or relativism. If it is okay for the POTUS to go to Arlington, then it is okay for the Prime Minister to go to Yasakuni. I don't think I would tack on the last sentence, but if he wanted to discuss it I would tell him that a memorial to German soldiers throughout German history is roughly equivalent to the same in any other country, and will include both honorable men and monsters. The fact that you are trying to draw an equivalence between the treatment of Japan and Germany following WWII really says everything that needs be said about this line of argument. Where is the ambiguity. I see serious damage caused by Japan to the Chinese people through war, responsibility and reproachment. There is nothing ambiguous in that statement. It was made 40 years ago. I would not consider that recent. It is also fairly all encompassing vis a vis China. Where did I say anything about celebration. I said that US soldiers responsible for horrific acts in WWII, including the fire bombing of civilians and the nuclear annihilation of whole cities are buried in Arlington and no one says anything about the President visiting the cemetery. He is doing so to commemorate the fallen soldiers of his country. The Japanese are visiting a shrine dedicated to the fallen soldiers of their country. The difference is, the US won the war, so our war criminals were not tried and theirs were.
You don't see the difference between Arlington and Yasakuni Shrine? One enshrines 14 class A, 1,068 Class-B and -C war criminals who had been executed after being sentenced to death by the military tribunals of the Allied Forces. Among them were the master minds of the death labor camps akin those run by Hitler's 3rd Reich, Nanking massacre, and other atrocities. The other only buries non-dishonored soldiers, i.e. no convicted war criminals. Which one is Arlington? Seriously, the only difference between the Nazis and the rest of world is that they lost the war in your mind?
Just responding to SM's post specifically in response to myself. So you agree then your argument is about relativism. I will keep this in mind the next time we have a discussion where principles are involved. To be fair yes I doubt you would use those same words but your line of reasoning is basically that and I would find it very surprising that someone would say such a thing to someone like Weisel. The relevance of this is that while I personally and I doubt anyone did live through the horrors of the Japanese Imperial Army I and I suspect others have family who did. I suspect if this issue were as close to you as it is to us you might not feel the same way. I will agree that what happened to post war Japan and Germany isn't exactly the same but it is very similar. Japan wasn't partitioned to the extent that Germany was, and keep in mind East Germany never lived up to its wartime history as much as West Germany did, but a long time it was practically under US military occupation and the Constitution and early postwar governments were practically dictated to the Japanese by Allied forces. If the argument is that Germany lived only lived up to its wartime history because it was more subjugated than Japan by the Allies I don't think it flies given how much control the US, and to a lesser extent other allies, exercised over Japan following the war. "Reproaches itself" isn't very clear in English what that means. Also I only know a smattering of Japanese so I haven't read the statement in its original but I have heard that there are shades of meaning to the terms used and in Japanese its even more ambiguous than the translation.
Yes, this entire discussion has been about relativism. Look back at my post which began this line of discussion, it was about China's behavior relative to that of Japan. I imagine any number of people have special sensitivities to any number of things. Do you think that there are no people with special sensitivities that would be offended by a shrine to Kim Il-sung (perhaps the family of one of the people he had executed for political reasons)? That doesn't prevent him from being enshrined. Are the special sensitivities of Jews to the holocaust and Asians to the Japanese somehow more worthy of protection? Can you find a map with an East Japan following WWII? Were people who tried to escape from there to West Japan killed? No, the treatment of Germany and Japan following WWII was not very similar. Here are some definitions of the verb form of reproach: 1. to criticize someone for doing something wrong 2. to feel ashamed because you know you have done something wrong It hardly seems ambiguous to me. Is there some alternate definition that you are considering, the idea of which would be different than an admission of wrongdoing? Does the word choice somehow transform this from a statement of apology into some sort of antagonism?
Good post, Stupid Moniker has painted himself into a corner and either does not recognize the folly of his belief or even more reprehensible, does not care.
So in other words you don't stand on principle in this argument. You are fine with people honoring war criminals since everyone does it. Here is a wikipidea link showing the division of the occupation of Japan at the end of WWII. Keep in mind that the Kuril Islands still remain in Russian hands to this day which is a sore point between Japan and Russia. Also keep in mind that Japan's constitution and government were dictated to it by the Allies and that the occupation lasted for years. Anyway your argument regarding this is largely a moot point since East Germany never lived up to its wartime history as much as West Germany so if you are saying that less occupation of Japan is why it didn't live up to its history as much as Germany would seem odd that the freer part of Germany expressed greater remorse. While that is basically the equivalent of saying "my bad" as an issue of self-reflection not an apology. Anyway unless you read Japanese I don't think you fully grasp the fine points of the original term.
I would prefer no one do it. I just don't think one country should be singled out for it when many of them do it. It shouldn't be okay for the US, China, Korea, England, et al and not okay for Japan and Germany. So far as was being discussed here, I don't think Japan's actions vis a vis honoring their fallen are worse than those others. I am saying that they are two different groups of people, that participated in two different acts, and were subjected to two different sets of conditions, so there is no reason that they would be expected to have the same response. I doubt the (officially athiest) Soviet Union focused as much on stressing apology for crimes against religious minorities as the US. I also strongly doubt the Stalin lead Soviets stressed apology for the slaughter of Chinese as the US did the slaughter of a religious minority. I strongly doubt the US stressed apology for the slaughter of Chinese who were seen as part of the communist problem for many years between the war and now as much as they did an influential religious minority. You may have noticed a focus by many on the killing of Jews by the Nazis, while the killing of Roma, the handicapped, homosexuals, etc. has received far less attention. Do you think that may have had anything to do with what they were pressured to do? I am not saying that is good, but there are clearly potential reasons beyond Germany > Japan. BTW, there was no link in your post. My bad (familiar to many Catholics as mea culpa) is a common form of apology. It is not ambiguous. It may not contain the word apologize, but it appears to be an unequivocal apology. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
