Yasukuni shrine

[chachava]

Anyone been? I notice it's reared it's head in the news once again for the usual controversy...

I went last year and found it to be absolutely hilarious - Japanese history seems to have been rewritten more than Heather Mills McCartney's personal past...

Suggesting that nanking was nothing more than Chinese stubborness was one of the highlights of the revisionism going on

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by chachava

Anyone been? I notice it's reared it's head in the news once again for the usual controversy...

I went last year and found it to be absolutely hilarious - Japanese history seems to have been rewritten more than Heather Mills McCartney's personal past...

Suggesting that nanking was nothing more than Chinese stubborness was one of the highlights of the revisionism going on

Was that revisionist history actually posted on the shrine itself, or in flyers, or what?

Because, in general, I don't have a problem with any country honoring its fallen soldiers, even if they were fighting us at the time. They did their duty to their country, families, and Emperor, and most had no say in war policies or orders for treatment of prisoners, etc.

However, while it's only natural to paint your own country in as good a light as possible, there should be honesty and recognition of facts and events.

[chachava]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Was that revisionist history actually posted on the shrine itself, or in flyers, or what?

Because, in general, I don't have a problem with any country honoring its fallen soldiers, even if they were fighting us at the time. They did their duty to their country, families, and Emperor, and most had no say in war policies or orders for treatment of prisoners, etc.

However, while it's only natural to paint your own country in as good a light as possible, there should be honesty and recognition of facts and events.

In the shrine itself... there were also things such as "America forced Japan into war to save itself from economic depression" and other stupid things along those lines

I seem to vaguely remember it saying something like they were the liberators of Asia from America/Europe hahaha

I should go again and take pictures, it really was pretty stupid...

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by chachava

In the shrine itself... there were also things such as "America forced Japan into war to save itself from economic depression" and other stupid things along those lines

I seem to vaguely remember it saying something like they were the liberators of Asia from America/Europe hahaha

I should go again and take pictures, it really was pretty stupid...

Interesting... I've never actually discussed history with any of my Japanese friends... I wonder if they believe or are taught this crap?

Mind you, many Americans I've known believe that Japan provoked America into war. It's actually not entirely true. America slapped sanctions on Japan because of their invasion of China. Mind you Japan shouldn't have invaded China in the first place so they are still deserve their "bad guys" tag in history at that time.

[Tsuwabuki]

Eh, it's more than that, we were afraid of their growing imperial strength. After WWI we put naval tonnage restrictions on them that we didn't put on other allies, but did put on the losers. As you can imagine, Japan was none too pleased with the the allies after that.

[blimp]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Was that revisionist history actually posted on the shrine itself, or in flyers, or what?

Because, in general, I don't have a problem with any country honoring its fallen soldiers, even if they were fighting us at the time. They did their duty to their country, families, and Emperor, and most had no say in war policies or orders for treatment of prisoners, etc.

However, while it's only natural to paint your own country in as good a light as possible, there should be honesty and recognition of facts and events.

the problem of honouring the fallen in this case is that the yasukuni shrine specifically also honours class a war criminals. it would be like having war memorials in germany that specifically mention goering, himmler or to make it even easier hitler.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Interesting... I've never actually discussed history with any of my Japanese friends... I wonder if they believe or are taught this crap?

Mind you, many Americans I've known believe that Japan provoked America into war. It's actually not entirely true. America slapped sanctions on Japan because of their invasion of China. Mind you Japan shouldn't have invaded China in the first place so they are still deserve their "bad guys" tag in history at that time.

I didn't talk about it too often on JET... I didn't want to be too confrontational with the teachers in my school. But they did ask me about WW2 a few times, and I then tried to answer their questions as diplomatically as possible. One time, the school's History teacher asked me (through an English teacher acting as interpreter, since she didn't speak any English) about what we were taught in school about WW2. She didn't seem too happy about what I told her, and repeated some of the usual revisionist history, which she seemed to believe. However, after the History teacher left, the English teacher who had been translating for us told me she (the English teacher) knew that the version written in their textbooks wasn't how it all happened, as did many Japanese people.

The 2 main things I tended to be asked were "Do many Americans still hate us for Pearl Harbor?" and "What did you think of the atomic bombs being used?" (Answers: "Not many at all, only a few old folks who were alive in WW2 might still hold any real grudge about that" and "Unfortunate, devastating, but helped end the war faster and with fewer casualties on both sides than if we'd gone ahead with the planned invasion.")

[Tsuwabuki]

There was enough blame when the dust settled fore everyone. World War II was caused by the treaties, agreements, sanctions, and deals of World War I, which itself was caused by the treaties, agreements, sanctions, deals, arranged marriages, and complicated royal family lines of post-imperialist era. America was not innocent, as we looked to obtain our own colonies and pursue our own imperialist agenda, especially in the pacific ocean, which led us to bump up against Japan's goals. This can still be seen in the fact that Hawaii is a state, and Guam is a protectorate, and we have plenty of other terrritories/protectorates as well in the Pacific.

The Japanese believed that we would come to the aid of our traditional European allies sooner or later, especially as we already considered them a threat. Pearl Harbor was a calculated first strike to end the Pacific War before it started by pretty much destroying the US Navy. Too bad someone in Tojo's cabinet didn't realise America could not be beaten that easily (even if Yamamoto did).

Chew on this: the US reserves first strike now, but is against anyone else having it.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

There was enough blame when the dust settled fore everyone. World War II was caused by the treaties, agreements, sanctions, and deals of World War I, which itself was caused by the treaties, agreements, sanctions, deals, arranged marriages, and complicated royal family lines of post-imperialist era. America was not innocent, as we looked to obtain our own colonies and pursue our own imperialist agenda, especially in the pacific ocean, which led us to bump up against Japan's goals. This can still be seen in the fact that Hawaii is a state, and Guam is a protectorate, and we have plenty of other terrritories/protectorates as well in the Pacific.

The Japanese believed that we would come to the aid of our traditional European allies sooner or later, especially as we already considered them a threat. Pearl Harbor was a calculated first strike to end the Pacific War before it started by pretty much destroying the US Navy. Too bad someone in Tojo's cabinet didn't realise America could not be beaten that easily (even if Yamamoto did).

Chew on this: the US reserves first strike now, but is against anyone else having it.

We did not go to war with Japan because we were competing to build an empire and "bumped into each other". America in the 30's was in the midst of the Great Depression, and after Wilson's Folly (aka WW1), America in general wanted nothing to do with empires and European entanglements. We had enough trouble with our dustbowl and stock market crashes and starving, out of work populace struggling to put food on the table. Thats why it took so long for the US to join WW2, and why it took an attack on the US and thousands of dead Americans before the public was convinced WW2 had to really concern them too.

As for the chewy part, every country in the world would strike first if they felt they were in imminent danger of being attacked themselves. America is no different. But I can't remember the last time we actually struck a country without any previous warning or reason. If you're thinking of Iraq, that was a continuation of hostilities because Saddam had not lived up to the requirements in the peace treaty he'd signed after Gulf War 1 (proof of disarmament, regular UN weapons inspections with total and unrestricted access, stop the human rights abuses, stop funding and sheltering terrorists, etc). But while the US was sending food and supplies to England, and were close enough allies that we might have eventually added them in person, we were not nearly so close with China, and didn't make nearly as big a fuss about Japan attacking parts of China as we did over Nazi Germany taking over France and attacking England. Sure, Japan and Germany were officially allies, but not long, close friends with historical ties like the US and England. And even after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, our response was to go fight the Nazis first.

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by samurai007

We did not go to war with Japan because we were competing to build an empire and "bumped into each other". America in the 30's was in the midst of the Great Depression, and after Wilson's Folly (aka WW1), America in general wanted nothing to do with empires and European entanglements. We had enough trouble with our dustbowl and stock market crashes and starving, out of work populace struggling to put food on the table. Thats why it took so long for the US to join WW2, and why it took an attack on the US and thousands of dead Americans before the public was convinced WW2 had to really concern them too.

You've missed the fact I was talking about decades of foreign policy. Ten years (29-39) does not reverse what we did since the 1890s, and especially the Great White Fleet. We were certainly building an American empire, and we certainly established our own colonies and protectorates, and intended to take a big chunk out of Pacific trade routes.

As for the chewy part, every country in the world would strike first if they felt they were in imminent danger of being attacked themselves. America is no different. But I can't remember the last time we actually struck a country without any previous warning or reason.

I have no problem with reserved first strike, and I'm not even saying I have an issue with American policy demanding we be the only ones with that right. After all, I am American. However, I am also Irish, and as such have bit of perspective from an another source (my family in Dublin, a few of which seem to blame me personally for America's faults). I'm just saying I am aware of how hypocritical it can sound, even if I'm not sure I have a problem with the hypocrisy.

If you're thinking of Iraq, that was a continuation of hostilities because Saddam had not lived up to the requirements in the peace treaty he'd signed after Gulf War 1 (proof of disarmament, regular UN weapons inspections with total and unrestricted access, stop the human rights abuses, stop funding and sheltering terrorists, etc).

I am not talking about Iraq. As I said above, I think you misunderstood the intent of my statement. I have no problem with the concept of the war in Iraq, I have an issue with its execution. Please note, I was a serving member of the US Military in 2003. I am certainly not opposed to military action, when it is necessary and executed properly. Iraq may have been necessary, although that has been cast into doubt, but it certainly has been a complete and total quagmire. As a veteran, the abuses I see at all levels, not only of Iraqis, but of our own troops (housing, food, pay, health care, etc) is just unacceptable. Saddam Hussein was a mad man, and eventually he needed to be stopped. I'm just not sure we were ready to handle it the way we have tried to. America is now weaker, and our alliances more fractured. I don't have a solution, and the sad part is, no one else seems to have a very good one either.

But while the US was sending food and supplies to England, and were close enough allies that we might have eventually added them in person, we were not nearly so close with China, and didn't make nearly as big a fuss about Japan attacking parts of China as we did over Nazi Germany taking over France and attacking England. Sure, Japan and Germany were officially allies, but not long, close friends with historical ties like the US and England. And even after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, our response was to go fight the Nazis first.

This just doesn't match up with my own research, and the papers I have written on the subject. Even so, the key concept is not entirely what America was absolutely doing, but rather what Japan believed us to be doing. The naval tonnage treaties are reality, as are the fact that we did hold colonial interests and protectorates even if we claimed to be insular and isolationist. Ten years is not enough to change decades of policy, even if it did cause a fairly severe contraction of that policy. We didn't as much care what was happening to the west of Japan, you're certainly right. But what we did care about was what was happening to the east of Japan, and more importantly, Japan cared what was happening east of it. You can argue America's intentions were not what the Japanese perceived them to be, or you can argue that America was not as attentive to its pacific holdings as it had been due to the Great Depression, but the Japanese military attacked because they believed they were in imminent danger. Whether Tojo and his cabinet agreed with you or not is somewhat immaterial. My gut feeling is that they did, and were able to raise support for the war because their arguments were already widely believed, and the Japanese people in general, believed the evidence I have mentioned led to the conclusion that Tojo postulated as being necessary to justify Pearl Harbor.