|
On July 12 2009 02:41 reincremate wrote:
The reason why this is a bunch of rubbish is because during the Cold War, the Chinese government did ignore the atrocities committed by Japan during WWII do strengthen economic ties to Japan (don't know much about Korea-Japan relations).
So? After WWII relations between China and Japan have changed many times. Did I ever deny that? And did I ever say whose fault it is that there is still tensions between basically every east Asian country? Fact is that WWII is an issue every time there is a high level meeting.
One person accused me of being pro Japan and another of being anti Japan. That is very telling.
Japan's refusal to acknowledge it's war crimes in WWII is akin to Germany refusing to acknowledge the Holocaust, which would surely spur outrage.
No. Definite no. It doesn't compare at all to the holocaust. It may be quite a large and cruel atrocity. But it is an atrocity of the type one sees very often in war. Very unlike the holocaust.
It's also not true there has been no apology. No satisfying apology maybe.
Germany had paid $120 billion in reparations to the allies and Israel by the year 2000, while Japan hasn't made any reparations whatsoever.
Reparations are the spoils of war, as cynical as that may be. Japan payed them. They just payed them as the US told them to do.
The outrage directed at the Japanese government by Chinese, Koreans, and other Asians whose countries were devastated by Japan during WWII is understandable. To hate Japanese as a people would obviously be wrong, but I've yet to meet a young Korean or Chinese person who actually hates Japanese people.
There are plenty of young Koreans and Chinese who hold grudges against Japanese people because of WWII. Very different from Europe once again.
Also, Mao is responsible for the death of 44.5 to 72 million in peace time and he is a revered person in China. Also, it's more recent.
This can't be an excuse used by Japan. But this shows it's all selective and people could put aside their differences if they wanted.
While surely many Chinese and Koreans bash Japan, the vast majority don't hate the Japanese as a people.
You use the word 'hate'. I never called Japan 'racist'. I called them xenophobic. I also never claimed there is hate towards the Japanese people. It's not that simple. Just because it isn't hateful racism that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
There will always be people in any culture who can't put history behind them, like the small (I'm assuming) minority of Jews who like to complain and whine about the Holocaust as if Germany never apologized for it on behalf of the Nazis. The difference with Japan's raping of the rest of eastern Asia is that Japan pretty much got off scot free with genocide.
Fact is that Europe saw the most atrocities. Yet Europe got over it. Asia didn't. Plus they made a bunch of new conflicts. Asia is guilty of this. You think it's all Japan's fault. Fine. I don't care how you judge. But the fact remains and you can't call it bullshit and then attack Japan with faulty arguments. Yes, if one has to single out one country it has to be Japan. But besides Japan there is still a lot of bad blood that doesn't involve them. Especially if you take all of Asia. There are only a few countries that have very warm relations with each other.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
I have to teach these Japanese to troll.
|
On July 12 2009 11:23 Diomedes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2009 02:41 reincremate wrote:
The reason why this is a bunch of rubbish is because during the Cold War, the Chinese government did ignore the atrocities committed by Japan during WWII do strengthen economic ties to Japan (don't know much about Korea-Japan relations).
So? After WWII relations between China and Japan have changed many times. Did I ever deny that? And did I ever say whose fault it is that there is still tensions between basically every east Asian country? Fact is that WWII is an issue every time there is a high level meeting. One person accused me of being pro Japan and another of being anti Japan. That is very telling. Show nested quote +Japan's refusal to acknowledge it's war crimes in WWII is akin to Germany refusing to acknowledge the Holocaust, which would surely spur outrage.
No. Definite no. It doesn't compare at all to the holocaust. It may be quite a large and cruel atrocity. But it is an atrocity of the type one sees very often in war. Very unlike the holocaust.
The Holocaust was a systematic mass killing of civilians in Europe committed by the Nazis with deaths numbering in the millions, whereas the Japanese Imperial Army during WWII committed...systematic mass killing of civilians in Asia with deaths numbering in the millions. Very different.
It's also not true there has been no apology. No satisfying apology maybe.
I didn't say there was no apology; I said the Japanese government has never admitted to committing war crimes/genocide. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi gave a vague, cop-out apology which meant very little if anything.
link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-22-japan-china_x.htm
Show nested quote +Germany had paid $120 billion in reparations to the allies and Israel by the year 2000, while Japan hasn't made any reparations whatsoever. Right Reparations are the spoils of war, as cynical as that may be. Japan payed them. They just payed them as the US told them to do.
[/QUOTE]
Reparations would be spoils of war if an invading country robbed the country it invaded. If however, a country was utterly destroyed and reduced to abject squalor by an aggressor it only makes sense for the aggressor to pay them for the damage after they lose. It's like if someone blew up your house and you demanded restitution for it. Obviously you can't expect proper war reparations to be paid after most wars and can point to countless examples where they aren't (US vs every country it's fought a war with), but it doesn't make it any less unfair.
Show nested quote +
The outrage directed at the Japanese government by Chinese, Koreans, and other Asians whose countries were devastated by Japan during WWII is understandable. To hate Japanese as a people would obviously be wrong, but I've yet to meet a young Korean or Chinese person who actually hates Japanese people.
There are plenty of young Koreans and Chinese who hold grudges against Japanese people because of WWII. Very different from Europe once again. Also, Mao is responsible for the death of 44.5 to 72 million in peace time and he is a revered person in China. Also, it's more recent. This can't be an excuse used by Japan. But this shows it's all selective and people could put aside their differences if they wanted.
A lot of Chinese people dislike/hate Mao too. Except Mao's crimes were less obvious and are not taught in Chinese schools (obviously). His policies caused the starvation of millions and though his regime did kill people directly, they didn't just go around killing, raping, torturing and in the streets and blowing up the country like the Japanese did, so many Chinese are not aware of how bad he was. It's like how millions around the world died because of the policies of the US. You don't/didn't see many Americans trying to impeach every president from Carter to Reagan to Clinton for either committing war crimes or being complicit in them (intentionally targeting civilians, funding and training genocidal thugs in most central American countries for example).
[/quote]While surely many Chinese and Koreans bash Japan, the vast majority don't hate the Japanese as a people.[/quote]
You use the word 'hate'. I never called Japan 'racist'. I called them xenophobic. I also never claimed there is hate towards the Japanese people. It's not that simple. Just because it isn't hateful racism that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
By bash I meant make stupid jokes or insults, not take to the streets and beat up Japs. Unless your a hyper-politically correct idiot, I don't see how that's a problem.
Show nested quote +There will always be people in any culture who can't put history behind them, like the small (I'm assuming) minority of Jews who like to complain and whine about the Holocaust as if Germany never apologized for it on behalf of the Nazis. The difference with Japan's raping of the rest of eastern Asia is that Japan pretty much got off scot free with genocide. Fact is that Europe saw the most atrocities. Yet Europe got over it. Asia didn't. Plus they made a bunch of new conflicts. Asia is guilty of this. You think it's all Japan's fault. Fine. I don't care how you judge. But the fact remains and you can't call it bullshit and then attack Japan with faulty arguments. Yes, if one has to single out one country it has to be Japan. But besides Japan there is still a lot of bad blood that doesn't involve them. Especially if you take all of Asia. There are only a few countries that have very warm relations with each other.
Although you can't repay the cost of lost lives, you can pay for physical damage caused by war. Most of Europe (all of Western Europe) got repaid for it under the loans of Marshall plan and former Axis nation reparations. Most of Asia didn't. I'm not demanding war reparations on behalf of the Asian countries that got raped by Japan, I'm just saying they didn't receive any, which makes the situation different from Europe. And yes, invading countries just to steal resources obviously put Japan at fault for WWII in Asia.
"A bunch of new conflicts" in Asia since WWII have nothing to do with people just hating on each other and not being able to get over stuff. There is a much greater political context for any armed or political conflict. You can't accuse an entire region of the world of not being able to let go of the past and make friends with each other and attribute it's current situation to that when there are so many other actual factors to consider. For example, the reason why relations between communist China and Korean and Japan are weaker than those between countries in the EU is because the latter two are close allies of the US, whereas China is a threat/rival to the US. The implications of that should be blatantly obvious.
|
I'm surprised we're 15 pages into this and people don't know the difference between the Holocaust; which was a massive genocide, and what Japan did to Asia. No matter how you twist and ring the data you cannot get genocide from Japan's actions. Nobody is dumb enough to deny they were horrid atrocities; however, there is a large gap between being absolute villains and committing genocide.
If the data on Gemany's reparations is true, then you pretty much have the exact reason (as I hinted at) for the Japanese government's refusal to formally apologize. As I said, Japan turned its aggressive energy to its economy. Taking a $120B hit isn't exactly inclusive to that. But again, this is the government and not the guy on the street.
|
Europe didn't "get over it." What they did was get split between the US and the USSR. They banded together for the sake of survival. The USSR created the Eastern bloc and the USA created NATO. Both of these coalitions were created out of political and military necessity. Therefore, a lot of the divisions caused by WW2 were closed up because of the Cold War.
Asia did not have a Cold War because there were no two opposing power blocs competing for influence there. Instead it was multilateral. The few places there were Cold War confrontations, you saw either great devastation or a split. AKA China/Taiwan, N and S Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.
|
On July 12 2009 12:26 sk` wrote:
I'm surprised we're 15 pages into this and people don't know the difference between the Holocaust; which was a massive genocide, and what Japan did to Asia. No matter how you twist and ring the data you cannot get genocide from Japan's actions. Nobody is dumb enough to deny they were horrid atrocities; however, there is a large gap between being absolute villains and committing genocide.
If the data on Gemany's reparations is true, then you pretty much have the exact reason (as I hinted at) for the Japanese government's refusal to formally apologize. As I said, Japan turned its aggressive energy to its economy. Taking a $120B hit isn't exactly inclusive to that. But again, this is the government and not the guy on the street.
I'm surprised after 50+ years, some people don't know that what the Nazis did wasn't genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. Genocide is when they succeed. What they did was ethnic cleansing. Japan did the same. They made an attempt at slaughtering entire populations and their violence was racially motivated. How is this any different than what the Nazis did? They didn't just kill Jews you know. They killed gypsies, gays, etc as well.
And WW2 isn't the first time Japan's committed genocide or ethnic cleansing. It's just the most recent time. They've got a long history of it.
Regardless, you sound pretty silly when you say the slaughter of millions in Asia isn't quite as bad as this other slaughter of millions in Europe. What exactly is the difference? It's more horrifying to die in concentration camps rather than bayoneting women in the vagina, burying people up to their heads in the ground, and then running them over with lawnmowers and vehicles? It's less evil? You make it sound like the Japanese killings of civilians was done as individual acts by deranged soldiers. It wasn't. They were ordered to mass murder civilians by the Japanese chain of command.
|
It's funny the OP tries to paint Korea as a tolerant country. I lived in Seoul for 3 years teaching English. They're probably the most racist group of developed Asians in the world. Women hating, racist nationalists. They're OK on the surface, but get a few beers in them, get to know them and it pours out.
|
BisuBoi:
As English is not your native language I'll forgive a blatant mis-use of a word as long as you're willing to learn... which, I think this thread has explained the meaning of genocide several times. First, for it to succeed being the only case in which the word is used is wrong. By logic, if that was true, there would be no genocides (fundamentally impossible). Additionally, the actual creation of the word was in relation to the German extermination of Jews. It was created in 1944.
I am well aware they were ordered to do what they did. That doesn't make it genocide. For it to be genocide their motivation has to be the extermination of the ethnic group. In the case of WW2 they were rampaging as a means to control and suppress. Extremination was not the overall goal as those regions were sought for colonial aspirations as well as economic benefit.
Understand, this is not saying Japan is not guilty of war crimes, merely there is a gap between that and the term genocide which is greatly misused here. Also understand, a nation or group does not need to be guilty of genocide to be guilty of war crimes.
|
Okay, I found a definition for genocide: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Therefore, by that definition you are correct and I'm wrong. But you are wrong to say the Japanese did not commit genocide. In fact, what the Japanese did during WW2 qualifies in every one of the criteria stated by UN law.
1. Killing members of the group: Do I need to explain what the Japanese did to fulfill this criterion?
2. Serious bodily or mental harm: ditto
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Famine_of_1945 This is only one of many many incidents created by the Japanese for the express purpose of killing off the native population in large numbers.
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women
5. Forcibly transferring children from one group to another: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese-run_internment_camps_during_World_War_II
You are not well-aware of what they were ordered to do. If you were, you wouldn't say something as stupid as "the Japanese did not commit genocide." By the definition of the word created in 1944, which you first quoted, the Japanese fulfilled not one, but ALL definitions of the word genocide. The definition of the word states IN PART. The Japanese most assuredly tried their best to destroy in part the entire race of Chinese people, as well as Koreans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos, etc etc.
Maybe you should read up on Japanese war crimes and ask yourself if you can say with a clear conscience that what the Japanese did was only for the purposes of waging war and any tragedy that befell their victims was only the byproduct of Japanese strategic war efforts.
"According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%. The death rate of Chinese POWs was much larger because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed. Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan."
|
You'll have to pardon me if I don't see that definition... here's something a little more trustworthy, from Merriam-Webster:
geno·cide
Pronunciation:
\ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function:
noun
Date:
1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Was their action systematic? To be systematic they would need to engage in the same system of destruction across all the regions, in this case their approach to suppressing and conquer was not systematic, but designed for the territory.
Were they aimed at a racial, political, or cultural group? All three at no. Racial: they attacked too many races (if you want to label the various Asians as separate races) or they attacked their own race (if you want to label all Asians as one race (I believe the first is more exact). Political: again, since the scope of their target was too wide, it is impossible to say they were attacking a political group. Cultural: once again, they are either too wide or self-inclusive.
Most importantly though, as with your other argument patterns, you ignore the details of your own point to select the parts that suit you. For example, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" I don't know what came before this, but something did. More importantly, even if we take this slice as-is, it is the lead of the definition and thus the most important clause, all other clauses are examples that one could use to carry out the lead clause.
So, did the Japanese intend to destroy who or in part a national, ethical, racial, or religious group? We can toss out religious and racial given the prior examples. Ethical is essentially the same as racial in this context as well, so we are only left the with "national" set. However, once again, you see a pattern of conquest and not the intent to destroy the national group. For example, if we look at the classic Nanking atrocity if Japan's goal was to destroy the national group they wouldn't have paused at just the city. The would have continue to push into China and continued to wipe them out.
Additionally, you see the same pattern in other regions. They held the Philippines Island long enough to destroy the native population; but instead the held and fortified the island. Their goal was to seize the worth of the island and not exterminate the national population.
This is the same in Korea and Vietnam as well.
Generally, aside from these forums I've never seen Japan's actions labeled as genocide. I guess that's just how it is taught in China, but every single historical piece on the era labels them as war crimes, but not genocide. There is a reason for this.
Also, the Merriam-Webster point has no "in part", but again, that's really not the point. Until you can prove their objective was to wipe out Asia completely (based on the scope of their military targets) you can't raise the concept of genocide. Their actions are were clearly conquest, which often went out of hand and crossed into the realm of war crimes. Honestly, by your very loose interpretation of the meaning of genocide all wars waged with the goal of conquest would fall as genocides. No.
|
I'm using the legal definition used by the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is the exact law that you referenced in your previous post.
To then call it not credible and cherry pick your own definition out of Merriam-Webster's stinks of desperation. Don't try to get semantical when it's plain as day that the Japanese were committing genocide just as much as the Nazis were. Or is there some outside bias which makes you have an aversion to the Japanese own up to their actions?
Look up your own damn sources before you start spewing them. "Additionally, the actual creation of the word was in relation to the German extermination of Jews. It was created in 1944." Raphael Lemkin coined the word and it was his work which ratified the later UN LAW of 1948! This is the law I quote word for word!
I have no problem debating with people but it needs to be ethical. You're not being ethical in your arguments. You're grasping at straws here. Furthermore, there was a deliberate focus on the Chinese. The Emperor Hirohito himself repealed all rights of Chinese POW while ONLY doing so for Chinese POWs. This is a direct example of special discrimination against the Chinese, much as the Germans did to the Jews.
The only reason it's not labeled genocide in the West is because there isn't as great of a PR campaign by the Chinese to have it labeled as genocide. Whereas the term genocide was especially created by a Jew to further the publicity of what was done to them. I find it pathetic that you are trying to argue now that what the Japanese did was not genocide and was purely for the purposes of military benefit. Beyond belief.
|
Actually, if you read my post I dismantled your definition as well. So there was no cherry picking, but rather, I demonstrated that when we don't ignore the first clause of the definition you sourced the definition of genocide does not fit. Now, if we mine our definitions as you attempted to, then you can MAKE IT FIT, but that goes against any notion of debate and falls under the banner of disinformation.
So lack of PR by the Chinese is why it isn't genocide now? Uh... good talking to you, post again when you're not just a cog in some propaganda machine.
|
On July 12 2009 13:02 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm surprised after 50+ years, some people don't know that what the Nazis did wasn't genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. Genocide is when they succeed. What they did was ethnic cleansing. Japan did the same.
WTF
Ethnic cleansing can be just chasing people from their homes. And it's not a legal term.
They succeeded in killing 9 million? How did they fail at genocide?
Regardless, you sound pretty silly when you say the slaughter of millions in Asia isn't quite as bad as this other slaughter of millions in Europe. What exactly is the difference?
The numbers differ. Nanking estimates range wildly but the max is like 500 000. That's not even close to 11-12 million.
But this is getting disgusting. Now we are discussing if killing 500 000 is bad enough considering somewhere else even more were killed.
It's more horrifying to die in concentration camps rather than bayoneting women in the vagina, burying people up to their heads in the ground, and then running them over with lawnmowers and vehicles? It's less evil?
The law is different. Things like this always happen in wars. Mass genocide doesn't. It is ordered and organized from the top using a lot of allocated resources.
You make it sound like the Japanese killings of civilians was done as individual acts by deranged soldiers. It wasn't. They were ordered to mass murder civilians by the Japanese chain of command.
What Japan did is arguably genocide. But it's much less clear and vastly different from what Germany did.
There was a war trial in Tokyo. If you read it you can see what was documented and what legal terms were used.
The 'Sanko Sakusen' policy was ruled to be a 'crime of genocide'. But of course neither the Germans nur the Japanese got a fair trial. Yeah, they were guilty. But they were punished under double standards.
So Japanese atrocities account to like 6 million at most. These were organized and disorganized, massacres and work camps, bombing, CB weapons and famine.
That's the same as the number of Jewish people killed. And if there were as many Jewish people as there were Chinese during WWII then even more would have been killed.
That's the difference between the very unusual genocide of the holocaust and huge massacres. Plus Germany itself has quite some more atrocities, for example in USSR.
|
Jesus how did the topic change so fast....
The japanese may have baseball, but we koreans have figure skating!
|
On July 12 2009 13:02 BisuBoi wrote:
I'm surprised after 50+ years, some people don't know that what the Nazis did wasn't genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. Genocide is when they succeed. What they did was ethnic cleansing. Japan did the same.
WAT WAT WAT ?
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
edit : oops, just noticed you admitted you are wrong. (by THE definition, so you are wrong)
|
On July 13 2009 02:42 omfghi2u2 wrote:Jesus how did the topic change so fast.... The japanese may have baseball, but we koreans have figure skating!
And golf!! Some HOT golf chicks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://yeinjee.com/asianpop/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/korean-kim-yu-na-01.jpg)
