Atomic Bombings of Japan

[XT]

From Wiki:

Background and buildup

The Russo-Japanese War of the early 20th century resulted in a Japanese victory and the Treaty of Portsmouth by which, in conjunction with other later events including the Mukden Incident and Japanese invasion of Manchuria in September 1931, Japan eventually gained control of Korea, Manchuria and Southern Sakhalin. In the late 1930s there were a number of Soviet-Japanese border incidents, the most significant being the Battle of Lake Khasan (Changkufeng Incident, July-August 1938) and the Battle of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan Incident, May-September 1939), which led to the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact[7][8] of April 1941. The Neutrality Pact freed up forces from the border incidents and enabled the Soviets to concentrate on their war with Germany, and the Japanese to concentrate on their southern expansion into Asia and the Pacific Ocean.

However, with success at Stalingrad, the Soviet attitude to Japan changed, both publicly, with Stalin making speeches denouncing Japan, and “privately”, with the Soviets building up forces and supplies in the Far East. At the Tehran Conference (November 1943), amongst other things, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan once Nazi Germany was defeated. The Soviet buildup in the Far East continued, and by early 1945 it had become apparent to the Japanese that the Soviets were preparing to invade Manchuria; in addition to their problems in the Pacific, the Japanese realised they needed to determine when and where such an invasion would occur.

At the Yalta Conference (February 1945), amongst other things, Stalin secured from Roosevelt the promise of Stalin’s Far Eastern territorial desires, in return agreeing to enter the Pacific war within two or three months of the defeat of Germany. By the middle of March 1945, things were not going well in the Pacific for the Japanese, and they withdrew their elite troops from Manchuria to support actions in the Pacific. Meanwhile the Soviets continued their Far Eastern buildup. The Soviets had decided that they did not wish to renew the Neutrality Pact. The terms of the Neutrality Pact required that 12 months before its expiry, the Soviets must advise the Japanese of this, so on 5 April 1945 they informed the Japanese that they did not wish to renew the treaty.[9] This caused the Japanese considerable concern,[10][11] but the Soviets went to great efforts to assure the Japanese that the treaty would still be in force for another twelve months, and that the Japanese had nothing to worry about.[12]

On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The situation continued to deteriorate for the Japanese, and they were now the only axis power left in the war. They were keen to keep at peace with the Soviets and extend the Neutrality Pact,[12] and they were also keen to achieve an end to the war. Continuously since Yalta they had repeatedly approached, or tried to approach, the Soviets in order to extend the neutrality pact, and to enlist the Soviets in negotiating peace with the allies. The Soviets did nothing to discourage these Japanese hopes, and drew the process out as long as possible (whilst continuing to prepare their invasion forces.)[12] One of the roles of the Cabinet of Admiral Baron Suzuki, which took office in April 1945, was to try to secure any peace terms short of unconditional surrender.[13] In late June they approached the Soviets, (the Neutrality Pact was still in place), inviting them to negotiate peace with the allies in support of Japan, providing them with specific proposals and in return they offered the Soviets very attractive territorial concessions. Stalin expressed interest, and the Japanese awaited the Soviet response. The Soviets continued to avoid providing a response. The Potsdam Conference was held from 16 July to 2 August 1945. On 24 July the Soviet Union recalled all embassy staff and families from Japan. On 26 July the conference produced the Potsdam Declaration whereby Churchill, Truman and Chiang Kai-shek (the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan) demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan. The Japanese continued to wait for the Soviet response, and avoided responding to the declaration.[12]

The Japanese had been monitoring Trans-Siberian Railway traffic and Soviet activity to the east of Manchuria and in conjunction with the Soviet delaying tactics, this suggested to them that the Soviets would not be ready to invade east Manchuria before the end of August. They did not, however, have any real idea, and no confirming evidence, as to when or where any invasion would occur.[14]

The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August.

Soviets

The Far East Command[2], under Marshal of the Soviet Union Aleksandr Vasilevsky, had a plan for the conquest of Manchuria that was simple but huge in scale[1], calling for a massive pincer movement over all of Manchuria. This pincer movement was to be performed by the Transbaikal Front from the west and by the 1st Far East Front from the east; the 2nd Far East Front was to attack the center of the pocket from the north.[2] The only Soviet equivalent of a theater command that operated during the war (apart from the short-lived 1941 “Directions” in the west), Far East Command, consisted of three Red Army fronts.

Check out what all they moved there:

Soviets

The Far East Command[2], under Marshal of the Soviet Union Aleksandr Vasilevsky, had a plan for the conquest of Manchuria that was simple but huge in scale[1], calling for a massive pincer movement over all of Manchuria. This pincer movement was to be performed by the Transbaikal Front from the west and by the 1st Far East Front from the east; the 2nd Far East Front was to attack the center of the pocket from the north.[2] The only Soviet equivalent of a theater command that operated during the war (apart from the short-lived 1941 “Directions” in the west), Far East Command, consisted of three Red Army fronts.

Western Front of Manchuria

The Transbaikal Front, under Marshal R. Y. Malinovsky, included[1]:

* 17th Army
* 36th Army
* 39th Army
* 53rd Army
* 6th Guards Tank Army
* Soviet Mongolian Cavalry Mechanized Group under I.A.Pliyev
* 12th Air Army.

Eastern Front of Manchuria

The 1st Far East Front, under Marshal K. A. Meretskov, included[1]:

* 1st Red Banner Army
* 5th Army
* 25th Army
* 35th Army
* 10th Mechanized Corps
* 9th Air Army.

Northern Front of Manchuria

The 2nd Far East Front, under General M. A. Purkayev, included[1]:

* 2nd Red Banner Army
* 15th Army
* 16th Army (whose 56th Rifle Corps was the only formation to see combat, on Sakhalin)
* 5th Separate Rifle Corps
* Chuguevsk Operational Group
* Amur Military Flotilla
* 10th Air Army.

That is a huge force. It took months to build up this much force, especially in 1945. There is no way Stalin would have been moving this much force to the region unless he was going to use it decisively.

-XT

[Bartman]

@Gary_Baldy

And yes, I doubt he would have declared war even though he agreed to do it at Yalta.

Fair enough. Figuring out Stalin is hard to do. I don’t agree with your assessment, but I can’t fault it. But I always figured once the troops were in place it was inevitable.

Sure Stalin would have loved to see the western Allies bled white in the Pacific. But delaying could have had uncomfortable results for him. It was still possible that the US could decide to encircle Japan and make landings in Korea, and the Kurils. And they might not be interested in handing them over if Stalin reneged. Better by far to seize everything he could. And he hadn’t yet consolidated control in Eastern Europe. Keeping the west placated bought him the time he needed.

[cckerberos]

@xtisme

I have zero doubts that he would have done so. He WANTED to capture huge swaths of former Japanese territory, as well as large pieces of Japan itself. There is no basis, afaik, for your doubt that he would have declared war on Japan and been in on the invasion of the Japanese main Island without the atomic bomb.

Agreed. We know from contemporary Soviet records that Stalin was planning to declare war on Japan well before they made their promise at Yalta. I highly recommend Hasegawa Tsuyoshi’s Racing the Enemy for more detail on this point. I disagree with Hasegawa’s main argument (that the war would have been over by November even with the bombs due to the Soviet intervention) but his is the only book in English that I’m aware of that covers Soviet actions in the summer of 1945 in detail. Fluent in Russian, he was fortunate enough to gain access to Soviet records only briefly made available to the public.

[Dissonance]

@gonzomax

For crying out loud. Look at these stats. Russin casualties and deaths were enormous. Who the hell are you to say they should have jumped in earlier.

Now hang on a second. Are you sure you’re not actually an ultra-hard right winger masquerading as a caricature of a fellow traveler on the internet? In gonzoland dropping the bomb was evil because Japan was so beaten that an invasion would have been a pushover and mopping up, so what if a few Americans die. Yet it’s how dare you question the timetables of the Red Army of Workers and Peasants? If it’s just mopping up, why the sudden concern about Soviet casualties? Oh well, it’s gonzoland logic where 850,000 dead or wounded Germans and Russians in Berlin is mopping up, why expect any consistency.

[DragonAsh]

[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]

As I have always read it the women in the WW1 German and French war brothels were not coerced into the job beyond the need for some kind of employment.

<snip>

No. It merely means that the women were not forced into the job by the military. Not did they face a 75% death rate like the “comfort women”

<snip>
Sorry, I don’t have figures for the survival rates in the German & French brothels.

That being said, I will ask you this: Do you know why the German Army in WW1 made military brothels?

[/QUOTE]

I’ll take your question first, although I have no clue why you’re asking. My understanding is that military brothels from centuries back have been for the same reasons: to improve morale, to try and keep the movement of the troops to a minimum (and easily trackable) and to try and control STDs.

My turn - I’ll ask you again - cites please, documenting that women working as prostitutes for the French and German armies during WWI or even WWII were not forced into the job. Second, cites please that document death rated for the prostitutes working for the French and German armies. If you don’t know, you don’t know - that’s fine. But then don’t try to make up comparisons if you don’t know.

[QUOTE=villa]

Have they made apologies? Yes. Do I think the apologies have any degree of sincerity behind them? No. More importantly, do the people who suffered under the Japanese think there is any degree of sincerity behind them? No

[/QUOTE]

OK, this is clear. They’ve apologized but you don’t think they were sincere.

a) What is your evidence for saying that Japan isn’t sincere in its apologies?

b) What action would convince you that they were, in fact, actually sincere? And what evidence do you think -other nations- should accept as evidence that Japan is in fact sincere?

c) The US government has never issued a formal apology to native American Indians. Do you think the US is not sorry for how native Indians were treated?

d) Not all Aborigines in Australia were convinced of the Australian government’s official apology for past abuses. Do you think the Australian government was not sincere?

Remember, you can’t count Yasukuni as ‘evidence’ that Japan isn’t ‘sincere’. We’ve already established that it doesn’t symbolize what you think it symbolizes (i.e., it doesn’t symbolize what China wants you to think it does). Only a handful of JPN prime ministers actually visited it, and some foreign dignitaries, including the Dalai Lama, for yoda’s sake, have visited it as well.

It’s depressing, really. I have yet to see anyone offer any insights or facts other than what they would read in any USA Today article over the past 20 years.

[Gary_Baldy]

@Bartman

Fair enough. Figuring out Stalin is hard to do. I don’t agree with your assessment, but I can’t fault it. But I always figured once the troops were in place it was inevitable.

Sure Stalin would have loved to see the western Allies bled white in the Pacific. But delaying could have had uncomfortable results for him. It was still possible that the US could decide to encircle Japan and make landings in Korea, and the Kurils. And they might not be interested in handing them over if Stalin reneged. Better by far to seize everything he could. And he hadn’t yet consolidated control in Eastern Europe. Keeping the west placated bought him the time he needed.

Okay. Let me rephrase what I wrote. What I wrote was: “And yes, I doubt he would have declared war even though he agreed to do it at Yalta.” I did not mean to imply he wouldn’t have declared war on Japan, just that he would have delayed it a bit long, probably by some weeks or months. I doubt he would have declared war within the three months of the fall of Berlin, except the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. If not for the bomb, I believe Stalin would have delayed declaring war on Japan, so that the Japanese could have transferred their troops back to Japan and the USA could weaken its military from an invasion of the Japanese homeland. The USSR would be able to take back territory (plus some) lost during the Russo-Japanese War with less resistance. However, (in my opinion) I believe the nuking of Hiroshima short circuited these plans and he declared war the next day, which just happened to be the deadline that he agreed to in Yalta.

[XT]

Gary Baldy, the Russian troops were already at their jump off points BEFORE the bombs fell…that’s how they were able to attack on August 9th. Again, you simply can’t start an attack on a dime, it takes days or even weeks of planning and staging, of getting the logistics in order…a million little things have to come together. The Russians declared war on Japan exactly when they agreed to do so…and their attack pretty much proves they were poised to do so, regardless of the bombs.

It wasn’t in Stalin’s best interest to wait, and this is a man who really couldn’t give two shits about how many causalities the Soviet army took, as long as they did what he wanted them to do. He didn’t bat an eye ordering them into the meat grinder that was Germany, after all.

-XT

[cckerberos]

Here’s Hasegawa on the timetable:

At Potsdam [Stalin] had told Truman that the Soviet Union would enter the war by the middle of August, but Antonov had told the American Chiefs of Staff that the Soviets would be ready to join the war in the last half of August. In all likelihood, the date of attack had remained some time between August 20 and 25, as set before the Potsdam Conference. With American possession of the atomic bomb and Truman’s manipulation of the Potsdam ultimatum, however, Stalin changed the timetable for the Soviet attack. It appears that while still in Potsdam, he ordered Marshal Vasilevskii to move up the operation by ten to fourteen days…

[In an August 3 report] Vasilevskii stated that by August 5 the Soviet forces at the First and Second Far Eastern Fronts would complete their advance to the designated points of concentration… [and] estimated that once they received the instruction to attack, it would take three to five days to cross the border. Thus the optimal time of attack would be August 9-10.

[Dissonance]

@DragonAsh

My turn - I’ll ask you again - cites please, documenting that women working as prostitutes for the French and German armies during WWI or even WWII were not forced into the job. Second, cites please that document death rated for the prostitutes working for the French and German armies. If you don’t know, you don’t know - that’s fine. But then don’t try to make up comparisons if you don’t know.

I don’t really have a dog in the fight on the issue of comfort women and how they were treated by the IJA. I’ve read a great deal on the Pacific War, but my knowledge on comfort women in particular is a bit shallow. I’m perfectly willing to believe that the issue has been overblown if provided with evidence. However, your evidence that it is overblown is, well, pretty lacking so far. You’re asking for cites to prove a negative in the bit that I’ve quoted from you. I couldn’t prove that prostitutes for the French and German armies weren’t forced into the job anymore than I could prove that prostitutes you and I could hire right now in peacetime weren’t ‘forced’ into their job. The issue with comfort women isn’t that they became prostitutes due to a lack of economic opportunities, but that they were literally forced into it by just kidnapping them. Comparing this with armies officially or unofficially sanctioning brothels in an attempt to control the spread of STDs (not for some noble goal, but to prevent the loss of soldiers to disease) is frankly rather disingenuous. I can’t provide you with a cite that 3/4 of the women who worked as prostitutes for the French or German armies in WW1 or WW2 died as a direct result of their vocation, but common sense would seem to argue against it.

[Isamu]

@DragonAsh

OK, this is clear. They’ve apologized but you don’t think they were sincere.

a) What is your evidence for saying that Japan isn’t sincere in its apologies?

b) What action would convince you that they were, in fact, actually sincere? And what evidence do you think -other nations- should accept as evidence that Japan is in fact sincere?

c) The US government has never issued a formal apology to native American Indians. Do you think the US is not sorry for how native Indians were treated?

d) Not all Aborigines in Australia were convinced of the Australian government’s official apology for past abuses. Do you think the Australian government was not sincere?

Remember, you can’t count Yasukuni as ‘evidence’ that Japan isn’t ‘sincere’. We’ve already established that it doesn’t symbolize what you think it symbolizes (i.e., it doesn’t symbolize what China wants you to think it does). Only a handful of JPN prime ministers actually visited it, and some foreign dignitaries, including the Dalai Lama, for yoda’s sake, have visited it as well.

It’s depressing, really. I have yet to see anyone offer any insights or facts other than what they would read in any USA Today article over the past 20 years.

Official compensation might indicate some measure of sincerity. (And I’m not talking about that NGO charity, the asia women’s fund).

Both (c) and (d) on your list have been compensated by the government of those respective countries. Land grants, special aid, education entitlements etc.

[DragonAsh]

@Dissonance

I’m perfectly willing to believe that the issue has been overblown if provided with evidence. However, your evidence that it is overblown is, well, pretty lacking so far. You’re asking for cites to prove a negative in the bit that I’ve quoted from you.

Dissonance, actually I haven’t said anything about whether the comfort women issue has been overblown or not. I actually don’t believe it has been overblown at all, and certainly never said so. I’m fully aware that the Japanese government has been stonewalling on the issue for years.

My argument was that someone (was it villa?) threw up the issue of ‘Japan hasn’t apologized to or paid any compenstation to the comfort women’ as ‘evidence’ that Japan’s apologies for its actions in WWII weren’t ‘sincere’. Some seemed to suggest that comfort women issue itself was evidence that Japan was ‘particularly evil’ or something. I am pointing out that, in fact, military prostitutes is nothing new (heck, the US army utilized prostitutes managed by the Japanese government during the Occupation). I also was pointing out that, in fact, the US hasn’t paid compensation to the slaves/native american indians, Australia isn’t paying out anything to the Aborigines, etc.

Finally, I was noting that if your argument is ‘well, the slaves and Native Americans actually harmed have been dead for decades, but the comfort women are still alive’, all you’re admitting is that Japan is trying to do what other governments, like the US, successfully did: stonewall the issue until the actual victims are dead and buried.

I don’t believe the US isn’t sorry for what happen to slaves or Native Americans just because the US government hasn’t a formal apology or paid restitution - those are issues that are far, far, more complicated than just an apology. But I don’t doubt that the US is not sincere in being sorry for past abuses.

Why should Japan not be given the same benefit? Why is Japan somehow singled out for ‘not being sincere’ in its previous numerous apologies, both re WWII and re the comfort women? If someone can offer reasons, we can debate them, but iIt seems to me to be a double standard, and what disappoints me is that the same reasons people give for Japan ‘not apologizing’ etc is the same re-hashed reasons given in newspaper articles from 20 years ago.
Trust me, there are lots more areas in Japan far more worthy of bashing: its stance on child pornography, work force discrimination, immigration policy, and its judicial system, just to name a few…

[DragonAsh]

@Isamu

Official compensation might indicate some measure of sincerity. (And I’m not talking about that NGO charity, the asia women’s fund).

Both (c) and (d) on your list have been compensated by the government of those respective countries. Land grants, special aid, education entitlements etc.

Yeah, and those land grants and entitlements have really done a lot for their plight, hasn’t it? Have you seen the education/unemployment data for Native Americans, African Americans, and Aborigines?

Sorry, ignore that - it’s too far off-topic. Let’s stick to this: Just to clarify - you think the slaves and Native Americans are not entitled to an official apology or restitution since they got land grants and such. Just asking: do you think the US government (for example) is sincere in its efforts, even though it has never issued a formal apology?

Let me clarify my stance: Just because the US and Australia were able to wait until all the actual victims were dead, doesn’t mean Japan should as well. I think they should pay compensation directly to living victims. But I’m also extremely aware of the legal difficulties - do you restrict it to just living victims? How about immediate family? How about extended family? How do you prove who was and who wasn’t a victim? I fully undertand (relucantly, and still don’t agree with) the reasoning that a government might not want to open that can of worms. It’s the same reason the US government won’t consider restitution for native americans, why Australia won’t pay restitution to the Aborigines, etc.

But I don’t think it’s a reason to simply doubt Japan’s sincerity when it apologies. (There are a couple of nutcakes in Japanese politics that say stupid things, and I have no doubt they probably even believe the can of stupid they open, but I bet Sarah Palin believes her basket of nonsense as well…)

Plus, Japan has taken one further step - the government set up a fund, specifically for the comfort women, including a signed apology from the prime friggen’ minister. By having it privately funded they remove the legal difficulties. By having a written apology from the prime minister, they acknowledge the government’s direct involvement and responsibility for its actions. We can debate whether or not that should be ‘enough’ (pretty much impossible to answer - should Native Americans be ‘happy’ with what they got from the US government?), but that’s not what I’m arguing about - my point is that you can’t just throw all that out and decide that Japan still must not be ‘sincere’ in its apologies.

And quite frankly, seeing the typical sentiment regarding this issue, and I fully recall the criticism Japan faced during the first Gulf War - I’m pretty sure that even if Japan did pay direct compensation, the response would be ‘see, Japan just trying to buy its way out of the problem’.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@DragonAsh

I’ll take your question first, although I have no clue why you’re asking. My understanding is that military brothels from centuries back have been for the same reasons: to improve morale, to try and keep the movement of the troops to a minimum (and easily trackable) and to try and control STDs.

The first part is that is why brothels have existed. Now as to why MILITARY run brothels were made, at least by Germans, is that they wanted to a) have control over brother issues as much as possible (including spread of disease) and b) Keep the ‘classier’ women exclusively for the officers.

Why do I mention this? Because I doubt that the Germans would segregate the women in this manner only to kill 3/4 of them.

My turn - I’ll ask you again - cites please, documenting that women working as prostitutes for the French and German armies during WWI or even WWII were not forced into the job.

I cannot prove a negative, but in WW1 the treatment of women in the front has been covered by more than a few authors and professors - Joshua S Goldstein for one. I think that if they were kidnapped into the brothel he might have made a note about it in his books rather than talking about how the invaded women entertained soldiers with song and dance.

Second, cites please that document death rated for the prostitutes working for the French and German armies. If you don’t know, you don’t know - that’s fine. But then don’t try to make up comparisons if you don’t know.

This is ludicrous - there have been hordes material on damn near every aspect of World War One and there has been absolutely no mention of severe casualties in the brothels. Again, had the death rate been a fraction of the ‘comfort women’ you would have heard about it certainly.

It was you who brought up this comparison, and trying to make me prove a negative won’t make it any more valid. You cry that you are not being an apologist and then you make demands like this; it make you look like, well, an apologist.

[DragonAsh]

It’s not trying to ‘make you prove a negative’. All you need to do is admit you don’t know. Or maybe just show that show that women working as prostitutes for the German/French armies were there more or less willingly. You obviously can’t. But just because you haven’t heard much about it isn’t much evidence that it didn’t happen, right? And, FWIW, this link !Big PDF! paints a less rosy picture than you would have us believe:

The German military, Red Army, and partisans inflicted a massive amount of sexual violence onto unarmed civilians on the eastern front during World War II. Under the German occupation, civilians were driven into prostitutional relationships and prostitution, which caused widespread venereal disease. The Germans established military brothels and forced females to serve, indirectly by starvation or directly by gunpoint.

It weighs in at over 400 pages, so it’s hefty, although I haven’t looked at it closely to judge how rigorously researched it is.

Either way, Mr. Miskatonic - my beef really isn’t about French and German brothels, or about the US and Native Americans, or Australia and the Aborigines. As I explained above, its holding a consistent standard. If someone is going to state that ‘Japan isn’t sincere in apologizing to the world for WWII/comfort women/karaoke’, than that person has to also believe that the US hasn’t apologized to the world for the Native Americans / slaves / Billy Ray Cyrus.

[villa]

@DragonAsh

OK, this is clear. They’ve apologized but you don’t think they were sincere.

a) What is your evidence for saying that Japan isn’t sincere in its apologies?

My evidence lies in conversations with Japanese people, in Japanese revisionists being prominant, in Japanese politicians constinuing to make statements regarding the war indicating a refusal to accept responsibility, in Japanese text books continuing to downplay Japan’s atrocities etc. Those actions are not consistent with sincere apologies.

@DragonAsh

b) What action would convince you that they were, in fact, actually sincere? And what evidence do you think -other nations- should accept as evidence that Japan is in fact sincere?

I honestly don’t know. I would have to wait and see what the action would be. And it really isn’t up to me to determine. Or you to be honest. I’ll leave that to the victims.

@DragonAsh

c) The US government has never issued a formal apology to native American Indians. Do you think the US is not sorry for how native Indians were treated?

I think a discussion of US policy towards Native Americans deserves its own thread. Comparison of atrocities doesn’t really benefit anyone. And no, I don’t think the US is particularly sorry for it.

@DragonAsh

d) Not all Aborigines in Australia were convinced of the Australian government’s official apology for past abuses. Do you think the Australian government was not sincere?

I think a discussion of Australian policy towards Aborigines deserves its own thread. Comparison of atrocities doesn’t really benefit anyone.

@DragonAsh

Remember, you can’t count Yasukuni as ‘evidence’ that Japan isn’t ‘sincere’. We’ve already established that it doesn’t symbolize what you think it symbolizes (i.e., it doesn’t symbolize what China wants you to think it does). Only a handful of JPN prime ministers actually visited it, and some foreign dignitaries, including the Dalai Lama, for yoda’s sake, have visited it as well.

It’s depressing, really. I have yet to see anyone offer any insights or facts other than what they would read in any USA Today article over the past 20 years.

Horseshit. We (meaning you) haven’t established jack. A shrine exists which includes multiple war criminals. That other people are there is irrelevant. I don’t give a rat’s ass who else has visited it.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@DragonAsh

It’s not trying to ‘make you prove a negative’.

Yes it is.

All you need to do is admit you don’t know.

In other words, you are more interested in pwnage than reality.

Or maybe just show that show that women working as prostitutes for the German/French armies were there more or less willingly.

As I said: Hordes of writers on WW1, some of them specifically covering gender issues from a feminist point of view - none of them make a single mention of the levels of brutality experienced by the ‘comfort women’.

You obviously can’t.

Doood! Pwnage!

But just because you haven’t heard much about it isn’t much evidence that it didn’t happen, right?

You say shit like this then turn around and say you are not asking me to prove a negative?!

And, FWIW, this link !Big PDF! paints a less rosy picture than you would have us believe:

That covers WW2 not the official brothels of WW1, and the brutality of the Nazis and the Red Army has been well covered already.

The German military, Red Army, and partisans inflicted a massive amount of sexual violence onto unarmed civilians on the eastern front during World War II. Under the German occupation, civilians were driven into prostitutional relationships and prostitution, which caused widespread venereal disease. The Germans established military brothels and forced females to serve, indirectly by starvation or directly by gunpoint.

Again, World War 2, which was not a Nazi conflict. We already know the Nazi’s were brutal. You were comparing the comfort women to the French and German brothels of the First World War.

[QUOTE[
It weighs in at over 400 pages, so it’s hefty, although I haven’t looked at it closely to judge how rigorously researched it is.

Either way, Mr. Miskatonic - my beef really isn’t about French and German brothels, or about the US and Native Americans, or Australia and the Aborigines. As I explained above, its holding a consistent standard. If someone is going to state that ‘Japan isn’t sincere in apologizing to the world for WWII/comfort women/karaoke’, than that person has to also believe that the US hasn’t apologized to the world for the Native Americans / slaves / Billy Ray Cyrus.[/QUOTE]

No, you weighed in with a very pathetic *tu quoque

• and got called on it. Now you’ve been trying to weasel out of it a dozen different ways. It isn’t working.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@DragonAsh

a) What is your evidence for saying that Japan isn’t sincere in its apologies?

I have to admit, I’m kind of curious what is written in the Japanese equivalent of a Grade-6 history textbook about the years 1933-45.

[cckerberos]

@Bryan_Ekers

I have to admit, I’m kind of curious what is written in the Japanese equivalent of a Grade-6 history textbook about the years 1933-45.

The Japanese Foreign Ministry posts English, Chinese, and Korean translations of all approved junior high school history texts here.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cckerberos

The Japanese Foreign Ministry posts English, Chinese, and Korean translations of all approved junior high school history texts here.

Thank you, I’ll do some skimming.

[cckerberos]

@Bryan_Ekers

Thank you, I’ll do some skimming.

I haven’t read them myself (not recently, anyway) but the worst one is probably Fusosha’s New History Textbook (bottom right). That’s the one that sparked anti-Japan demonstrations in Korea and China in 2005.