One more reason why we, as a society, seem to be more aware of Nazi atrocities than Japanese is because of the Eichmann Trial. Although war criminals from both Germany and Japan were tried immediately after the war, by the end of the '50s memories of them were no longer in the forefront of the nation’s consciousness. The Eichmann Trial brought them back with a vengenance- day after day of sensational testimony was on the front pages of the news papers. Not only did it reinforce fading memories among the adults, but it made a new generation aware of what had happened in Europe. Following the trial there were a series of other war crimes trials in West Germany, spurred in part by the publicity from the Eichmann affair. The heightened publicity also aided Simon Weisenthal and other Nazi hunters who had labored in obscurity until then. From that point on knowledge of the Holocaust remained in the general consciousness in western societies.
Sorry if I missed it above, but here’s my theory:
The Chinese are:
A) Not white, and
B) Now dirty Commies.
The Japanese are:
A) One of our largest trading partners.
How come we’ve all heard of the Black Hole of Calcutta, Hindu child brides, &c, but not the various massacres and cruelties that the British perpetrated against the natives of India?
Or the American role in Chinese opium smuggling?
Or the fact that Thomas Jefferson didn’t think Phyllis Wheatley was all that hot shit, poetry-wise?
Because it suits us to forget about them.
Peace, I’m not really sure I understand your question, but I’ll try to give the best answer I can.
Russia came into the war against Japan literally in the last few days of the war. The Russians probably remembered the Russo-Japanese war of 1905-6, and were not anxious to suffer that type of humiliating defeat again. That said, the Soviet troops swept over significant portions of Japanese-held territory in a short time, including several small islands off of the northern coast of Hokkaido. The Russians still hold these islands, and do not seem willing to give them up. The Japanese government, particularly its more conservative elements, will not sign a treaty until Russia gives those islands back. There have been a few hesitant steps in that direction lately, but it’s impossible to tell if the current actions are going anywhere. To restate it, Japan and Russia have not signed a treaty because Russia won’t give back the islands it took from Japan after the war, not because of a missing apology. Japan really has nothing to apologize to Russia about. Indeed, possibly the opposite, as the Soviets imprisoned Japanese who wandered into their territory during the war and did not release them once the war was over.
Frog: The thing that boggles my mind is how was Stalin able to stay in power after all he did?
He stayed in power because of what he did. He killed all opposition, real, hidden and imagined and then millions of non-political folks. The main target was “intelligentsia”, but even illiterate peasants died.
So, in short, he stayed in power becase there was nobody to remove him. Whoever was not killed did not want to be.
I do not think he invented the strategy “kill the opposition” (literally), but he vastly improved the concept.
Which, incidentally, survived him.
A folklore joke:On his deathbed, Brezhnev asks the Politbureau members: Comrades, who of you will replace me? Andropov steps ahead and says: “I will”.
“But what if our people will not follow you, Yuri?”.
“Then they will follow you, Leo”.
Shingen, I’ll try to clear my throat:
Ahem, the question was almost hypothetical: Russia needs/wants our economic assistance. And Japan’s. And Europe’s. In order to get it, they might become “softer” in the Kuril Islands question.
Could the U.S. push them toward it? Like by promising something? Actually, by forcing Russia “to sell” them in return for more help?
These are 4 tiny volcanic islands, with no natural resources to speak about. Some oil is pumped out in S. Sakhalin. Not much, it’s not Prudhoe Bay, although the climate is almost as harsh. The islands may have some strategic value, but not much nowaday, the mainland is not far. So, it’s mostly faux “prestige”, so I thought that some combination of hand twisting and economic incentives could push them in the right direction.
Japa, on its part, would return the favor and apologise/aknowledge its atrocities.
Are we willing to kill more than one bird, STS?
DrDoom, in all my respect, 16,000 prisonners pale compared to “one sitting” Rape of Nanking, of any other event discussed here. Especially Jewish holocaust, when one half of the people perished as the result of planned, methodical , by the clock executed indiscriminate decade-long killing.
Any war is gory, Civil war is even more so: we killed oor own. But let’s keep some perspectoive here.
Sorry I didn’t get you the first time. I’ll try to (ehem) answer your question more directly this time.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by peace *
Shingen, I’ll try to clear my throat:
Ahem, the question was almost hypothetical: Russia needs/wants our economic assistance. And Japan’s. And Europe’s. In order to get it, they might become “softer” in the Kuril Islands question.
Could the U.S. push them toward it? Like by promising something? Actually, by forcing Russia “to sell” them in return for more help?
These are 4 tiny volcanic islands, with no natural resources to speak about. Some oil is pumped out in S. Sakhalin. Not much, it’s not Prudhoe Bay, although the climate is almost as harsh. The islands may have some strategic value, but not much nowaday, the mainland is not far. So, it’s mostly faux “prestige”, so I thought that some combination of hand twisting and economic incentives could push them in the right direction.
Japa, on its part, would return the favor and apologise/aknowledge its atrocities.
Are we willing to kill more than one bird, STS?
/QUOTE]
I’m not sure the US has to play any role in this. Indeed, it would be good for Japan to take of its own problems once in a while. It is true that the land assets of the Kuril islands are small and insignificant, but offshore are a lot of fish. For a nation whose national diet has traditionally been rice and fish, this is significant. Japanese fishermen currently fish in those areas now, at least occasionally, and occasionally the Russian navy shoots at them and/or seizes the boat/crew. The ability to fish those waters unmolested would be a big benefit here in the land of sashimi.
Even more to the point though, the primary issue is national soveriegnty. Japan says, truthfully, that the lands in question were under Japanese control from the mid-1800s until 1945 when the mean commies took them by force. Russia says, truthfully, that nearly all the people living on those islands today are Russian citizens and the few improvements that have been made to the islands are all paid for by the Soviets/Russians. The native Ainu peoples who lived on those islands first say nothing because they have been nearly exterminated by the Japanese and the Russians.
I think that the islands in question will be given back to Japan eventually. Tokyo just has to offer a big enough financial carrot. The big obstacle (in addition to coming up with the yenage) is the ultra-nationalists in both countries. The ones in Russia don’t want to give up any territory, but could be appeased with a large compensatory sum. The ones in Japan feel that the land belongs to them, and they don’t want to pay anything for it. Eventually both of these obstacles will go away, but Japan’s current economic crunch makes it unlikely that it will happen soon. The US could offer to mediate, but this isn’t really a problem that the international community seems too worried about.
Japanese businesses seem to have had no problems with the fact that their country is still technically at war with Russia. As an extreme example of that, Toshiba sold a large, high-tech floating dry dock to the Soviet navy in the early 1980s. There was a lot of outrage over the sale in the US, but in Japan there was little reaction. It was more “Oh my goodness, the Americans are angry at us again. I wonder what we did?” rather than a full blown scandal.
Another obstacle to the return of the “Northern Territories” is the diplomatic ineptness of Prime Minister Mori. For those who missed it, I’ll explain.
First a little background. In the years since the end of the Korean War, Japanese people have gone missing. In general they were not people that their loved ones thought were likely to kill themselves or run away, and in general they were last seen walking alone along the beach. Officially their disappearances have remained unexplained, but a number of North Korean informants claim that they have seen them in North Korea, usually serving as language trainers for North Korean spies preparing to go to Japan. The operating theory in Japan is that the individuals were kidnapped and are being held against their will.
Here’s where Mori comes in. A couple of weeks ago, he was in the UK meeting with Tony Blair. Apparently, in the presence of microphones, he casually said to Blair that if the missing Japanese were somehow miraculously located in Beijing or some other city in a third country, Japan would forget all about them and normalize relations with North Korea. This was a blunder of huge proportions, and first Mori denied it, then he admitted it, then he denied it, then he and his cabinet secretary tried to blame the whole thing on someone else, then he admitted it again. Almost makes President Clinton seem like an honest guy, doesn’t it.
Anyway, the current combination of a lack of funds and blunder-boy behind the wheel ensures that this is a problem that won’t be solved anytime soon, and if they US is smart, they will stay the hell away from it. Of course the good news is that it really isn’t anything to get really worked up over either.
Peace, really! Was that 16,000 civil war prisoners total or just at one “camp”?
Haven’t seen this mentioned yet and can’t find Professor Smythe’s report, an ideas where to find it? …
"In June 1938 a report titled “War Damage in the Nanking Area, December 1937 to March 1938,” was submitted to the International Safety Zone Committee by Professor Lewis S. C. Smythe of Nanking University. The weakness of this report is that it uses extrapolated figures. It was based on the result of a survey carried out with visits to one out of every 50 households in Nanking and one out of every 10 households in the countryside around the city.
The Smythe report concluded that 2,400 people died of either rape or assault in Nanking and 4,200 people were abducted. In the nearby Chiang-nin (Jiangnin) County, 9,160 died of either rape or assault, and in all five counties surveyed the total deaths from such causes came to 26,870. One issue with this report is the appropriateness of its geographical extent. But more to the point, the fact that it suggests fatalities of under 30,000 has caused it to be used as no more than an incidental reference by researchers."
Just curious – DD