Japanese Broadcast Official: We Didn’t Commit War Crimes

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. Basically, by deciding to Not Talk about the war, except to spread antiwar messages, the generation of Japanese who actually lived through WWII seem to have created a problem now. The children are aware of how bad it is to lose a war because they've seen pictures of the bomb craters. But the soldiers who actually fought mostly did not talk about it afterwards on the public record (books and media), and now have aged into death, so that they can no longer informally correct their children's folly.

Contrast to Germany which was quite active in analyzing and explaining the war, and what happened, and in which many German soldiers DID publish memoirs making it quite clear that they'd been on the offensive and that their war was a war of aggression. They didn't try to pretend that the war started in winter 1944 with the Allies pounding at the gates of the Reich.
________________

As to that 'destroyer...' my impression:

As an aircraft carrier that destroyer isn't much to write home about; at the moment the only combat aircraft it can fly are attack helicopters and maybe Harriers, either of which the PLAAF or the VVS- or, hell, the South Koreans, who have modern fighters too- could eat for lunch.

If the F-35B ever gets enough of the kinks hammered out to be a threat then there might be a problem... but that relies on the US deciding to sell carrier fighters to Japan (possible, granted), and ignores that by the time this could plausibly happen, China will have several quite credible carriers in its own right. They might have a hell of a time fighting F-35s, but again, I'm actually not sure the US would sell STOVL F-35s to Japan knowing they'd predictably get used to turn a helicopter ship into a functional carrier.

[Thanas]

The Japanese might try and just use this as a pilot project to gather experience, kinda how the Chinese started their carrier program. Japan does have large enough shipbuilding capacities to build carriers of their own should they decide to do so.

[Flagg]

Is it true that Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the span of months if they so desired? I read that a long time ago and cannot remember where. Doing a search on google all I get is shit about the two America dropped on them.

[Tanasinn]

But truth be told, the US didn't really "give" half of Korea to Russia. The USSR took it, pretty much in the same way as North Vietnam, and there was no way of changing that. Only the Vietnamese were more lucky, since old Uncle Ho wasn't hellbent on making himself god and restoring a hereditary Asian despoty.

More than just being inaccurate, saying that the U.S. "gave" half of Korea to Russia is downright offensive considering that South Korea as a relatively prosperous and safe country only exists today because a shitload of Americans would later end up dying far from home bringing the South Korean forces back from the brink of defeat during the Korean War.

[Thanas]

Is it true that Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the span of months if they so desired? I read that a long time ago and cannot remember where. Doing a search on google all I get is shit about the two America dropped on them.

They got reactors, but that does not mean instant nukes. Heck, just look at how long it took the north koreans despite having reactors as well. If the US were to provide technological assistance, then sure. But would they?

[Flagg]

Is it true that Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the span of months if they so desired? I read that a long time ago and cannot remember where. Doing a search on google all I get is shit about the two America dropped on them.

They got reactors, but that does not mean instant nukes. Heck, just look at how long it took the north koreans despite having reactors as well. If the US were to provide technological assistance, then sure. But would they?

I doubt it. But it would depend on our current relations with Japan, as well as the aggressiveness of China or North Korea (but mostly China) at the time.

[Tanasinn]

It doesn't seem wise. Once the nuclear cat's is out of the bag, you can't put it back in. As it is the U.S. has defense treaties with Japan, and I suppose in extremis that would extend as far as nuclear retaliation against a suitably all-out enemy, but if the U.S. were to help Japan develop its own nuclear weapons, it's not like they don't keep them if there's ever a diplomatic falling-out.

The U.S. probably has too many interests - diplomatic and economic - to start passing out nuclear kickstarters like free candy.

[Thanas]

They didn't give nukes to other countries during the cold war. I highly doubt they will do so over some stupid squabbles over uninhabited islands (albeit with natural resources).

[Flagg]

I'm talking about some hypothetical situation where for whatever reason China became unusually belligerent. But even then I have to say I doubt we'd help Japan build nukes. We'd most likely just station nukes on our bases in Japan. But again, that's even a stretch given we could just park a boomer sub off the coast and we have plenty of ICBMs.

But my question was whether Japan had the ability to "race to the bomb" so to speak and I feel like that has been answered to my satisfaction.

[Simon_Jester]

The Japanese might try and just use this as a pilot project to gather experience, kinda how the Chinese started their carrier program. Japan does have large enough shipbuilding capacities to build carriers of their own should they decide to do so.

True, but it's somewhat tricky, from the point of view of an outside ally, to stop the Japanese from building a 14000-ton helicopter carrier while permitting them to operate AEGIS-capable surface combatants that could probably swat the helicopter carrier's entire air arm and send it to the bottom easily.

Maybe the US should be rigorously enforcing arms control limitations on Japan- in practice, the Cold War doomed that prospect because it forced the US to rely on Japan as a source of support. Once someone's been supporting you for 30-40 years, you really cannot go back to treating them like a conquered province once again.

But truth be told, the US didn't really "give" half of Korea to Russia. The USSR took it, pretty much in the same way as North Vietnam, and there was no way of changing that. Only the Vietnamese were more lucky, since old Uncle Ho wasn't hellbent on making himself god and restoring a hereditary Asian despoty.

More than just being inaccurate, saying that the U.S. "gave" half of Korea to Russia is downright offensive considering that South Korea as a relatively prosperous and safe country only exists today because a shitload of Americans would later end up dying far from home bringing the South Korean forces back from the brink of defeat during the Korean War.

Seconded. This is roughly the same stripe of idiocy involved in claiming that the US/British forces should have "kept going" at the end of World War Two to clear Eastern Europe of the Red Army. It just... casually ignores the massive destruction (and indeed risk of failure) associated with such a major military operation. How much worse off would we be if the Western Allies had decided that it was worth another major campaign to prevent East Germany from falling under communist control, fought the Red Army over it, and lost?

For a reference on just how nuts this would have been, see Operation Unthinkable, thus called for a reason.

Is it true that Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the span of months if they so desired? I read that a long time ago and cannot remember where. Doing a search on google all I get is shit about the two America dropped on them.

They got reactors, but that does not mean instant nukes. Heck, just look at how long it took the north koreans despite having reactors as well. If the US were to provide technological assistance, then sure. But would they?

Japan has modern technical infrastructure, first-rate researchers and universities, and the resources to make their own electronics, chemical refining equipment, and heavy machinery. It would be a LOT easier for them than for North Korea.

[cosmicalstorm]

If a war actually got started I suspect that the US would not involve itself all the way but its definetly a gray area. Japan ought to be able to build nuclear weapons on fairly short notice but I remember that Stuart alluded that there were some components and things that were hard to get right without some real testing and tinkering. I wonder what would happen if Japan, South Korea and Taiwan went to war with China?

[Metahive]

Think I'm making this up? I refer you to the secret addenda of the Yalta Conference where tbe West had the USSR promise to join the war with Japan. No russian involvement = no korean separation, I therefore feel fully justified to lay the blame at West's feet. Spare me your indignation, tbis isn't even the first time that the West and Russia fucked my country over for their petty power play. Remember, they gave their blessing to Japan's cruel occupation back when Japan was the West's teacher's pet and the sentiment was that they would teach us true "civilisation".

[Thanas]

Maybe the US should be rigorously enforcing arms control limitations on Japan- in practice, the Cold War doomed that prospect because it forced the US to rely on Japan as a source of support. Once someone's been supporting you for 30-40 years, you really cannot go back to treating them like a conquered province once again.

US arms control is a joke anyway, see Israel.

Japan has modern technical infrastructure, first-rate researchers and universities, and the resources to make their own electronics, chemical refining equipment, and heavy machinery. It would be a LOT easier for them than for North Korea.

Sure. But they won't be able to do so in months.

[Flagg]

If a war actually got started I suspect that the US would not involve itself all the way but its definetly a gray area. Japan ought to be able to build nuclear weapons on fairly short notice but I remember that Stuart alluded that there were some components and things that were hard to get right without some real testing and tinkering. I wonder what would happen if Japan, South Korea and Taiwan went to war with China?

The United States isn't going to abandon its 2 closest allies in Asia (South Korea and Japan, both of which have thousands of US troops stationed in them) to the Chinese which is precisely what we'd be doing if we didn't essentially aid them in a hypothetical war with China. It's patently ridiculous. Taiwan... Well I for one don't want to throw nukes around to save Taiwan, but I'm not familiar with US policy concerning them though we sold them some AEGIS Cruisers maybe a decade ago so maybe.

[Flagg]

Think I'm making this up? I refer you to the secret addenda of the Yalta Conference where tbe West had the USSR promise to join the war with Japan. No russian involvement = no korean separation, I therefore feel fully justified to lay the blame at West's feet. Spare me your indignation, tbis isn't even the first time that the West and Russia fucked my country over for their petty power play. Remember, they gave their blessing to Japan's cruel occupation back when Japan was the West's teacher's pet and the sentiment was that they would teach us true "civilisation".

I'm not going to defend the west "allowing" Japan to do what they did to Korea, it's indefensible and the Japanese were downright barbaric. But one of the reasons Japan surrendered was because the USSR crushed the Japanese army in Manchuria. And it's not like the US didn't shed tens of thousands of lives both defending South Korea and then trying to unite the peninsula only to get pushed back by the Chinese. My maternal grandfather served aboard the aircraft carrier USS Essex in that war and if he weren't cremated he'd be spinning in his grave because he lost friends fighting to liberate your nation.

[TimothyC]

Is it true that Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the span of months if they so desired? I read that a long time ago and cannot remember where. Doing a search on google all I get is shit about the two America dropped on them.

They have all of the parts to put together a bomb in months (if by months you mean 12-18). They have indigenous reprocessing and fuel production facilities, as well as the solid fuel rockets useful for delivery.

Let me put it this way: If there wasn't a file in a cabinet some place labeled the Japanese equivalent of "How to go build a nuclear arsenal in 18 months" I would be very, very surprised.

Taiwan... Well I for one don't want to throw nukes around to save Taiwan, but I'm not familiar with US policy concerning them though we sold them some AEGIS Cruisers maybe a decade ago so maybe.

We sold them NTU Destroyers (the Kidd Class). They were, at the time, the next best thing to AEGIS.

[Metahive]

I guess my point has been lost in the kerfluffle somewhat.

The West invited the USSR to do their magic in East-Asia and performed a real life weapons test on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to achieve a specific goal, to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. Well, they got this and then...they let the Emperor go. They gave him and his clan not only a general amnesty but specifically protected them from all accusations of wrongdoing, see Hideki Tojo's almost botched "confession" where he went from "I did it for the Emperor" to "I did it for myself" on the behest of the US.
In leaving the imperial clan untouched the West left the Japanese with the impression that they had been the victims of WW2, that they had been wronged by everyone else and that they bore no blame, with the exception of a few scapegoats that were led to the chopping block and subsequently declared saints anyway. And now they think they are owed retribution.

This I find unforgivable. If the US were going to leave the Emperor alone, then they might as well have negotiated a peace since that was what the Japanese considered an unalienable condition for successful peace talks. Sacrificing other people for a cause you easily abandon after all is utterly deplorable. Imagine the allies had only executed the likes of Himmler and Göring but left Hitler alone after turning Germany into a giant sandpit.

My maternal grandfather served aboard the aircraft carrier USS Essex in that war and if he weren't cremated he'd be spinning in his grave because he lost friends fighting to liberate your nation.

I'm grateful that the West prevented all of Korea from becoming King Kim's personal sandcasatle. But that doesn't mean all that bad stuff that happened is automatically forgiven and forgotten, especially when the existence of the Kingdom of Kim and the constant taunting and threatening of the Japanese serve as a daily reminder.
Also, what must be mentioned is that the West did not interfere in the Korea out of the goodness of their hearts but because they felt their global sphere of influence was threatened. I must remind everyone that until the late 80's, South Korea was ruled by a brutal rightwing military junta with approval of the West (the standard Cold War MO). They were not as bad as King Kim, but not exactly shining beacons of human rights either.

[Flagg]

Is it true that Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the span of months if they so desired? I read that a long time ago and cannot remember where. Doing a search on google all I get is shit about the two America dropped on them.

They have all of the parts to put together a bomb in months (if by months you mean 12-18). They have indigenous reprocessing and fuel production facilities, as well as the solid fuel rockets useful for delivery.

Let me put it this way: If there wasn't a file in a cabinet some place labeled the Japanese equivalent of "How to go build a nuclear arsenal in 18 months" I would be very, very surprised.

Taiwan... Well I for one don't want to throw nukes around to save Taiwan, but I'm not familiar with US policy concerning them though we sold them some AEGIS Cruisers maybe a decade ago so maybe.

We sold them NTU Destroyers (the Kidd Class). They were, at the time, the next best thing to AEGIS.

Huh, you're right. Why the fuck is the media so goddamned ignorant when it comes to military weaponry and equipment? Because I remember articles stating flat out they were AEGIS Cruisers.

[montypython]

I guess my point has been lost in the kerfluffle somewhat.

The West invited the USSR to do their magic in East-Asia and performed a real life weapons test on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to achieve a specific goal, to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. Well, they got this and then...they let the Emperor go. They gave him and his clan not only a general amnesty but specifically protected them from all accusations of wrongdoing, see Hideki Tojo's almost botched "confession" where he went from "I did it for the Emperor" to "I did it for myself" on the behest of the US.
In leaving the imperial clan untouched the West left the Japanese with the impression that they had been the victims of WW2, that they had been wronged by everyone else and that they bore no blame, with the exception of a few scapegoats that were led to the chopping block and subsequently declared saints anyway. And now they think they are owed retribution.

This I find unforgivable. If the US were going to leave the Emperor alone, then they might as well have negotiated a peace since that was what the Japanese considered an unalienable condition for successful peace talks. Sacrificing other people for a cause you easily abandon after all is utterly deplorable. Imagine the allies had only executed the likes of Himmler and Göring but left Hitler alone after turning Germany into a giant sandpit.

It's this particular sentiment in Japan which makes me feel that if WWIII happens they will be at the heart of such instigation, and why the rest of Asia needs to be wary about it.

[Simon_Jester]

Maybe the US should be rigorously enforcing arms control limitations on Japan- in practice, the Cold War doomed that prospect because it forced the US to rely on Japan as a source of support. Once someone's been supporting you for 30-40 years, you really cannot go back to treating them like a conquered province once again.

US arms control is a joke anyway, see Israel.

Well, in this case the 'control' in question was literally dictated at gunpoint by the Americans in 1945. Not the same situation as Israel.

However, as was the case with West Germany, the intent that the aggressor state be disarmed and remain disarmed was subverted by the Cold War. Within 10-15 years, the US (and for that matter other anti-Soviet powers in the region) found it convenient that West Germany and Japan be at least able to defend themselves militarily, instead of having to rely entirely on US occupation troops to protect themselves from a Soviet attack.

There is very little difference in my opinion between the process by which the US accepted the creation of the JSDF and the process by which it accepted the creation of the Bundeswehr. And after half a century of relying on the Bundeswehr and JSDF to provide local support to American forces in the event that World War Three blows up, it is very unlikely that the US would restrain either Germany or Japan from obtaining pretty much whatever conventional weapons they want, including aircraft carriers.

Japan has modern technical infrastructure, first-rate researchers and universities, and the resources to make their own electronics, chemical refining equipment, and heavy machinery. It would be a LOT easier for them than for North Korea.

Sure. But they won't be able to do so in months.

You are almost certainly right.

If a first-rate industrial and technological power made careful preparations they might go from 'no bomb' to 'several bombs' in a span of months. I deem it unlikely that Japan has made those preparations, so I think you're right.

But at the same time, there's a lot I don't know. They might be starting those preparations quietly already, if their government sees fit. And even if they haven't, they could probably start those preparations at any time.

Even without them it's going to be a matter of no more than 2-4 years between Japan deciding to have a nuclear weapon and their first nuclear test. The US was able to do it in about four years from a cold start, using vastly more primitive technology, and did NOT have the advantage of already knowing nuclear bombs could be built, or a large existing technical base that knew how to operate nuclear technology.

I guess my point has been lost in the kerfluffle somewhat.

The West invited the USSR to do their magic in East-Asia and performed a real life weapons test on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to achieve a specific goal, to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally.

I don't think it's quite that simple. The purpose of unconditional surrender was always to remove the possibility of something like the German revanchist "backstab" legend that arose around World War One. To tell the aggressive state "no, you did NOT give up because a few of your politicians were surrender monkeys, nor are we prepared to tolerate you rebuilding your warmaking capability, you gave up completely because we were defeating you on all fronts with overwhelming force, such that you had no hope of defeating us, or even holding out until we gave up."

Accepting any Japanese surrender prior to the ones they gave after the Russian invasion and the atomic bomb would have defeated the purpose of unconditional surrender. It would have been hard if not impossible to compel Japan to give up ANY part of Korea, or to give up the means to construct another large military and try again with the whole 'aggression' thing in another ten or fifteen years.

Unless you have evidence that Japan was offering not only to surrender, but to give up its colonies and disarm?

Meanwhile, the USSR was perfectly capable of swamping Manchuria and/or Korea with troops whether the US wanted it to or not; that is simply a practical reality. I'd argue that the fact that Truman made an arrangement with the Soviets to ensure that such an invasion would take place simply acknowledged that reality. As a result, it ensured that the Soviets would actually contribute to the downfall of Japan rather than 'fighting to the last American' and then scooping up whatever spoils they wanted on the Asian mainland.

In leaving the imperial clan untouched the West left the Japanese with the impression that they had been the victims of WW2, that they had been wronged by everyone else and that they bore no blame, with the exception of a few scapegoats that were led to the chopping block and subsequently declared saints anyway. And now they think they are owed retribution.

I think this has a lot to do with Japanese national psychology that the US can't be blamed for not understanding in advance. My impression is that most US leaders of the time figured that the Japanese saw the Imperial dynasty as godlike figures, such that killing or even deposing them would cause more disruption and resistance from occupied Japan than leaving them alone. Moreover, they were honestly unclear themselves as to how much responsibility for the war Hirohito actually held, since very few Westerners had anything like a clear understanding of Japan.

All the Allied decisions made were made consistent with:
1) Ensuring that Japan's military surrendered as soon as possible, with as little further battle as possible, and especially without a full-scale invasion of Japan that would result in millions of casualties on both sides.
2) Ensuring that in the postwar environment, Japan was unable to quickly rebuild its military power, and would operate under the control of an Allied occupation force that could preemptively squash any revanchist movements.
3) Actually bringing the USSR into the 'peace process' in the Far East, so that they could be held to some kind of agreements, rather than simply being left to do exactly as they pleased and get overambitious in ways that might result in a US-Soviet war over the Far East.

These strike me as basically reasonable, responsible motives, even if they didn't work out nearly as well as I'd like.

[Welf]

Yes. Basically, by deciding to Not Talk about the war, except to spread antiwar messages, the generation of Japanese who actually lived through WWII seem to have created a problem now. The children are aware of how bad it is to lose a war because they've seen pictures of the bomb craters. But the soldiers who actually fought mostly did not talk about it afterwards on the public record (books and media), and now have aged into death, so that they can no longer informally correct their children's folly.

Contrast to Germany which was quite active in analyzing and explaining the war, and what happened, and in which many German soldiers DID publish memoirs making it quite clear that they'd been on the offensive and that their war was a war of aggression. They didn't try to pretend that the war started in winter 1944 with the Allies pounding at the gates of the Reich.

it should be noted that this was a long fight. After the war there was a lot of silence and often justification. But unlike the Japanese after the war the guilt could be shifted to "the Nazis" who got separated from the "good soldiers and dent people who just followed orders under pressure". A lot of the discussion from the 70s on focused on the involvement of all parts of society in the war. Still in the 90s an exhibition of the crimes of the Wehrmacht annoyed apologists.
But Germany had a different starting point; mainly that the next governments where form different social movements. First the Christian conservatives then the social democrats who represented the trade unions. In hindsight it was a lie that those claimed they were not involved in the Nazi government (for example the foreign ministry had more Nazi party members after the war then before), but it was a lie that maybe helped getting over this.

They didn't give nukes to other countries during the cold war. I highly doubt they will do so over some stupid squabbles over uninhabited islands (albeit with natural resources).

What about the UK and Israel? I thought both got support to build their nuclear programs?

[mr friendly guy]

Is it true that Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the span of months if they so desired? I read that a long time ago and cannot remember where. Doing a search on google all I get is shit about the two America dropped on them.

Its been touted on various news sites as a strategy for having almost as good as a nuclear deterrence without having one. I have heard it said Iran might try this trick as well, to show that if push comes to shove they can also build nukes but won't violate any non proliferation treaties because they haven't actually built any.

[Thanas]

. Still in the 90s an exhibition of the crimes of the Wehrmacht annoyed apologists.

To be fair that exhibition was riddled with mistakes, wrongly attributing photographs on a grand scale etc. The redone exhibition was much better, but still had mistakes.

They didn't give nukes to other countries during the cold war. I highly doubt they will do so over some stupid squabbles over uninhabited islands (albeit with natural resources).

What about the UK and Israel? I thought both got support to build their nuclear programs?

I don't know about the UK but Israel stole their nuclear knowledge via spying (how much that spying was allowed to happen is a matter of debate).

[Siege]

Speaking of Japanese actions that anger China:

China condemned on Monday plans by a Japanese city to ask the U.N. world heritage organisation to register letters by World War Two kamikaze suicide pilots alongside documents that include the diaries of Anne Frank and the Magna Carta.

The southern Japanese city of Minami Kyushu had last week asked UNESCO to register the wills and farewell letters of the pilots who had carried out attacks on allied ships to highlight the importance of world peace.

The city hosted an airfield from which hundreds of pilots launched suicide missions in 1945, the final year of the war.

China's Foreign Ministry, however, said kamikaze pilots deserved no such recognition.

"The design behind the so-called application for the kamikaze pilots is very clear, which is to try and beautify the Japanese militarist history of invasion," foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing.

"This intention is diametrically opposed to UNESCO's objective of maintaining world peace, and must be strongly condemned and resolutely opposed by the international community," Hua added.

Full article at the link. I wouldn't be opposed to classifying those wills and letters as world heritage because the goal of the 'memory of the world' program is to preserve and make accessible documentary heritage that has world significance. I'd say these documents classify as that... But I also sympathize with the Chinese in that I don't trust the current crop of Japanese politicians to not spin it as a recognition of how brave and wonderful their imperial military was, in which case UNESCO probably should avoid involvement. It's best not to overtly politicize something as important as world heritage.

[K. A. Pital]

Kamikaze are an example of people so brainwashed that they killed themselves like human bullets. That is a kind of heritage, I agree. Maybe these letters belong to a heritage museum, but they belong there like the diaries of Wehrmacht and SS goons that were slaughtering people left and right or the people from Unit 731. And the context in which they should be presented is exactly that: the context of a terrible war crime.