I was reading this article today and it seems resentment still runs pretty deep in Asia about the Japanese…and this is after 60 years. I’m unsure how fair this is though. Most if not all of the Japanese actually responsible for the war are out of power…and probably dead for the most part. Japan today is very different than Japan in the '30’s or '40’s. I especially found this quote kind of off key:
After all, Japanese imperialism IS down…it’s been dead and gone for 60 years now. Is it fair to rail at the Japanese and burn their flag and chant such out of time rants at them? Do the Japanese still deserve to pay for their crimes? Should they still get hammered for what they did? Afaik the Germans aren’t constantly apologizing for their invasions, and their neighbors aren’t burning their flag or saying stuff like ‘Down with German imperialism!’.
Perhaps not a ‘Great Debate’ this, but one I’m curious how dopers will respond too.
Okay:
Japan has never really apologized or admitted it was wrong.
Germany has done so time and again. As a people when the Bonn Govt’ was trying to gloss over WWII, 20.000+ university kids protested it with the simple rallying cry of:
Japan was just as brutal as the Germans just no so specific.
I know you have read about their wonderful occupation of the mainland.
Sorry no cites, just putting forth hearsay and memory of past readings.
Currently, Japan is considering amending its constitution to permit not only a defensive military but also a military which may fight overseas. Their current prime minister also continues to publicly revere war criminals. Additionally, at least one Japanese political leader has called Japan’s brutal occupation a good thing for the countries occupied. I daresay that kind of stuff peeves certain people here.
If by “Japan” you mean “the Japanese government”, then this is absolutely incorrect. The idea that “Japan has never apologized” gets tossed around alot, but it hasn’t been true for decades.
He didn’t say that Japan has never apologized but that Japan has never really apologized. The Japanese government says they’re sorry then does something to prove it’s really not sorry at all. The latest two salvos in that regard from Japan are the textbook issue and the visit to the war criminals shrine. That gets kind of old kind of fast for those whom Japan subjugated.
The LDP proposed draft for constitutional revision (which is probably going to be the most important proposal) won’t be out until November, but under the Diet draft the JSDF, while able to fight overseas, will still be far from a “normal” military. I believe that the most likely changes will be explicit recognition of the constitutionality of the JSDF, Japan’s right to participate in collective security, and participate in peacekeeping operations. This is little more than acknowledgment of the status quo.
It’s also little different, especially in the eyes of Koreans, from the justification Japan’s former military government gave for annexing Korea. Of course, that may very well be an extreme view but Korea has already been occupied once–an extreme action–by Japan. I can see how Korea would consider such a change in Japan’s constitution to be reviving a past atrocious attitude.
Perhaps, but I honestly can’t regard that as anything other than an irrational emotional reaction, reminiscent of the Chinese who during the anti-Japanese demonstrations in spring seemed to think that Japan posed a military threat to the PRC.
Well, Korea is looking at that amendment coupled with both the official visit to the war criminals shrine (IIRC, although the PM declard he was only visiting the war criminals shrine as a private visit, the Japanese Supreme Court said he was visiting in his official capacity, especially since he signed the guest register there as Prime Minister) and the recent textbooks that glorify and excuse Japan’s atrocities during the war.
But then Japan has never come to grips with the simple idea that Hirohito was a war criminal himself.
BTW, did you read the Korea Times editorial I linked?
Here’s something else funny: look at the locations of cckerberos and Monty. I don’t think either of us is Japanese or Korean.
Now, I have spent a long time in Japan and enjoyed the country and the people; however, I did see there that there was an incredible ignorance of what happened to other countries at Japan’s hands during WWII. That’s part of the attitude that Korea, China, and other Asian countries wish Japan would dispense with. In their view, Japan needs to really own up to its past, admit it was evil, and then stop with the BS glorifying of its evil past. Japan needs to quit using textbooks that don’t say Japan started the war, textbooks that don’t say what bad things Japan did, and its official government needs to quit honoring war criminals. That last one, more than any other IMHO, demonstrates very well that the Japanese government isn’t sorry at all.
True, but the Japanese never internalized their war responsibility the way the Germans did. Why that’s the case is of course a matter of debate, but certainly the idea that the Japanese people had been the victims of their military leaders that promoted by both the American occupation government and postwar Japanese leaders played a role. The physical and psychological seperation of Japan from the Asian mainland and the victims of their aggression is, I think, a sharp contrast with Germany’s situation in Europe. The postwar Japanese internalized of pacifism was based off of their own suffering during the war, not that of their neighbors.
Whatever the reason, I don’t see the situation changing. It’s been 60 years, and the society is too far removed from the events to form the kind of visceral attachment that would be necessary for massive change. A visit to Yasukuni by Koizumi is considered deeply offensive by mainland Asians, but most Japanese don’t view as any different than a visit to Arlington by Bush. And I think they view complaints from China and Korea not much differently from how middle America would see a protest from Mexico regarding the internment of Mexican War veterans.
MacArthur, IMO, made a rather large mistake in permitting the emperor to go unpunished. The Japanese will never know how much of a war criminal he was so long as they continue to hide from their part in WWII. Had Hirohito (aka Showa) faced punishment, there’s no way they could’ve avoided owning up to their part.
I read the editorial and agree with it and you regarding what Japan must do if it wants to truly be sincere in addressing its past agression.
Oh, and you’re correct that I’m not Japanese.
BTW, it’s slightly off topic, but I thought I’d like to this. It’s a translation that I did of a 1944 Japanese children’s book about Japan’s actions in Asia. It’s eerily similar to the arguments still being put forward by the Japanese ultra right.
Belgium has no reason to apologize, since its government went in exile and it was an occupied country. So, whatever happened in Belgium was under the responsability of Germans (the issue of the king’s behavior was his sole responsability and he wasn’t governing the country). Not to say that individual Belgians couldn’t have been involved, but once again, it was their personnal responsability, not the nation’s.
France refused for a long time to apologize on the basis that the Vichy government was illegitimate, hence that the Republic wasn’t responsible for what happened under its rule, and its representants (the president in particular) couldn’t apologize on behalf of a regime which wasn’t the republic. However, Chirac changed this long-standing policy, stated that France should aknowledge its responsability as a nation and apologized IIRC during one of the yearly ceremonies at the “Vel d’Hiv” (a stadium that was used during a large scale operation against Parisian Jews).
Since we were talking about the ceremonies at the Japanese war criminals shrine, I would also mention that Chirac also put an end to the tradition of the french president sending flowers for Petain’s grave (as a WWI victor) on november 18.
For those interested, I would finally point out that his predecessor (Mitterrand)'s past under the Vichy regime and during the occupation was at best unclear. Very roughly, it seems that he kept irons in both fires, being at the same time a civil servant working for Vichy (and decorated for this with the Vichy “francisque” medal, something which was disclosed only very late***) and joining the resistance in some unclear way at some unclear point. It’s also generally believed that he had protected some WWII high-profile criminals, out of gratitude for the support he had received from them during the post-war era (Mitterrand’s loyalty to his friends, regardless of the circumstances, was quite famous). All this, I suspect, probably played a part in his refusal of changing the traditionnal french stance, despite pressures from part of the public opinion during the last part of his 14 years long “reign”.
*** : Listen to your parents(+): my father knew it and told me so, but I didn’t really believe him until it became a public issue.
(+) Well…not always, preferably. But sometimes, to our surprise, they really know what they’re talking about.
While thinking again about my preious post (the difference between France and Belgium, or for that matter Germany, Austria or Poland), it strikes me that deciding upon which country should apologize or not and for what is a very unclear issue. It’s all about symbolism and quite arbitrary. That could be a topic worth a GD thread.
What to you even mean by this? Are we talking about the Vichy French that willingly aided the Nazi’s? If so, then no the French have failed to apologize, but I think that govt. has been repudiated and hasn’t even existed for 60 years.
BTW I am not supporting the continuance of hatred of Japan by Korea & China, I think after 60 years, it might be time to move on. I was just explaining why there is still resentment toward Japan and less towards Germany.
BTW again: As far as France, have you ever noticed they might be the country, Americans like the least? They really haven’t apologized or accepted much guilt for their SEEMINGLY all too willing compliance with their Nazi overlords. The Vichy represented a larger portion of the French population than the Resistance did.