Abe continues being a vile revisionist

[Thanas]

Here is his statement on the end of the war. Link

Try to read it without flying into a blind rage over the obfuscation and muddling of the issues. Count how many lines he devotes to the strength of the Japanese people and how many he devotes to the suffering of the victims. And look if he names any specific Japanese war crimes and what causes he attributes to the deaths of civilians - and how he equivocates comfort women to war rape everywhere.

And here is what was wrong about it.

What a disgusting being Abe is.

[mr friendly guy]

This sums it up

Apology is certainly not the magic wand of regional reconciliation, but it is naïve to think it doesn’t matter. Revisionists complain that Japan has already apologized numerous times, but they overlook the fact that prominent conservatives always publicly repudiate every apology, thereby keeping Japan behind the eight ball of history.

If you "apologise" for <insert vague statement here> and then very specifically deny very specific events occur, what is one supposed to think?

There are two possibilities that spring to mind. The first is that Japanese neocons acknowledge some events in WWII, but not others. These others just happen to be the really serious war crimes. This explanation at least makes the two actions at least internally consistent.

The second possibility are that they are simply being two faced.

Neither option is acceptable. But we will have apologists pointing out the apology bit, followed up by "Why doesn't China accept such an apology," (no need to bring SK in this, because we can't drag up enough ad hominems for SK), and insinuate the CCP is complaining because of domestic reasons (which even if true is still irrelevant and serves as an ad hominem).

[Metahive]

This is the result if MacArthur's brilliant idea to grant general amnesty to the Emperor and his family. This gave the general population the idea that the country was "hijacked" by a bunch of rotten militarists and that all the atrocities of war were never really the doing of the country.

I wonder what would have happened if the Soviets had actually gone through with their invasion of Japan that was prevented by the nuclear bombings. Stalin had plans to hang the emperor after all.

[FireNexus]

I wonder what would have happened if the Soviets had actually gone through with their invasion of Japan that was prevented by the nuclear bombings. Stalin had plans to hang the emperor after all.

Probably a split Japan and a proxy war between the soviets and the U.S. Maybe a war between the U.S. and Soviets before the Soviets got the Bomb.

[K. A. Pital]

I wonder what would have happened if the Soviets had actually gone through with their invasion of Japan that was prevented by the nuclear bombings. Stalin had plans to hang the emperor after all.

A bigger Khabarovsk trial, perhaps. Remarkable that for all what the Japanese bastards did, the law at the time didn't allow to give them death penalty, it being abolished two years prior. We couldn't even kill Otozo Yamada. But then, if the trial happened in 1945-47, I think most of the Japanese generals and officials accused would get the death penalty.

And look if he names any specific Japanese war crimes and what causes he attributes to the deaths of civilians - and how he equivocates comfort women to war rape everywhere.

As some Japanese who were related to the peace article in Japanese constitution say, Abe is not just a vile revisionist but also a traitor to his own nation. What will the Japanese say when they're sent to die in idiotic "honor" wars in the future? The article was put there for a reason.

[Grumman]

This sums it up

Apology is certainly not the magic wand of regional reconciliation, but it is naïve to think it doesn’t matter. Revisionists complain that Japan has already apologized numerous times, but they overlook the fact that prominent conservatives always publicly repudiate every apology, thereby keeping Japan behind the eight ball of history.

I would disagree with that first point. Shinzou Abe was born ten years after the war ended, and I don't think he automatically needs to apologise for crimes committed by others before he was in any position to protest. All he needs to do is recognise them as "those assholes whose greed and bigotry got millions of innocent people killed" instead of as people to be admired.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Shinzou Abe was born ten years after the war ended, and I don't think he automatically needs to apologise for crimes committed by others before he was in any position to protest. All he needs to do is recognise them as "those assholes whose greed and bigotry got millions of innocent people killed" instead of as people to be admired.

For an individual person, you would be right. But I think that a different standard has to apply for such a prime minister. By becoming prime minister, he is implicitly accepting responsibility for being the representative of Japan as a country and the Japanese as a people. I think that does place a grader onus on him to apologize, regardless of the lack of direct individual culpability.

[Thanas]

See, von Weizsäcker spoke in his famous speech about the end of the war twenty years earlier about similar things (read the whole speech as a PDF here, it is highly recommended reading for any student of German history and policy today). I'll just post part of one of the 9 sections of it that deals with this.

8 May is a day of remembrance. Remembering means recalling an occurrence honestly and undistortedly so that it becomes a part of our very beings. This places high demands on our truthfulness.

Today we mourn all the dead of the war and the tyranny. In particular we commemorate the six million Jews who were murdered in German concentration camps. We commemorate all nations who suffered in the war, especially the countless citizens of the Soviet Union and Poland who lost their lives. As Germans, we mourn our own compatriots who perished as soldiers, during air raids at home, in captivity or during expulsion. We commemorate the Sinti and Romany gypsies, the homosexuals and the mentally ill who were killed, as well as the people who had to die for their religious or political beliefs. We commemorate the hostages who were executed. We recall the victims of the resistance movements in all the countries occupied by us. As Germans, we pay homage to the victims of the German resistance – among the public, the military, the churches, the workers and trade unions, and the communists. We commemorate those who did not actively resist, but preferred to die instead of violating their consciences.

Alongside the endless army of the dead mountains of human suffering arise – grief at the dead, suffering from injury or crippling or barbarous compulsory sterilization, suffering during the air raids, during flight and expulsion, suffering because of rape and pillage, forced labour, injustice and torture, hunger and hardship, suffering because of fear of arrest and death, grief at the loss of everything which one had wrongly believed in and worked for. Today we sorrowfully recall all this human suffering.

Perhaps the greatest burden was borne by the women of all nations. Their suffering, renunciation and silent strength are all too easily forgotten by history. Filled with fear, they worked, bore human life and protected it. They mourned their fallen fathers and sons, husbands, brothers and friends. In the years of darkness, they ensured that the light of humanity was not extinguished. After the war, with no prospect of a secure future, women everywhere were the first to set about building homes again, the "rubble women" in Berlin and elsewhere. When the men who had survived returned, women had to take a back seat again. Because of the war, many women were left alone and spent their lives in solitude. Yet it is first and foremost thanks to the women that nations did not disintegrate spiritually on account of the destruction, devastation, atrocities and inhumanity and that they gradually regained their foothold after the war.

At the root of the tyranny was Hitler's immeasurable hatred against our Jewish compatriots. Hitler had never concealed this hatred from the public, but made the entire nation a tool of it. Only a day before his death, on 30 April 1945, he concluded his so-called will with the words: "Above all, I call upon the leaders of the nation and their followers to observe painstakingly the race laws and to oppose ruthlessly the poisoners of all nations: international Jewry." Hardly any country has in its history always remained free from blame for war or violence. The genocide of the Jews is, however, unparalleled in history.

The perpetration of this crime was in the hands of a few people. It was concealed from the eyes of the public, but every German was able to experience what his Jewish compatriots had to suffer, ranging from plain apathy and hidden intolerance to outright hatred. Who could remain unsuspecting after the burning of the synagogues, the plundering, the stigmatization with the Star of David, the deprivation of rights, the ceaseless violation of human dignity? Whoever opened his eyes and ears and sought information could not fail to notice that Jews were being deported. The nature and scope of the destruction may have exceeded human imagination, but in reality there was, apart from the crime itself, the attempt by too many people, including those of my generation, who were young and were not involved in planning the events and carrying them out, not to take note of what was happening. There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the Holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything.

There is no such thing as the guilt or innocence of an entire nation. Guilt is, like innocence, not collective, but personal. There is discovered or concealed individual guilt. There is guilt which people acknowledge or deny. Everyone who directly experienced that era should today quietly ask himself about his involvement then.

The vast majority of today's population were either children then or had not been born. They cannot profess a guilt of their own for crimes that they did not commit. No discerning person can expect them to wear a penitential robe simply because they are Germans. But their forefathers have left them a grave legacy. All of us, whether guilty or not, whether old or young, must accept the past. We are all affected by its consequences and liable for it.

The young and old generations must and can help each other to understand why it is vital to keep alive the memories. It is not a case of coming to terms with the past. That is not possible. It cannot be subsequently modified or made undone. However, anyone who closes his eyes to the past is blind to the present. Whoever refuses to remember the inhumanity is prone to new risks of infection.

It is one thing of making such a declaration after honestly and to the best of ones ability commemorating the dead.

It is quite another when a prime minister of a nation that refuses to acknowledge the crimes and the victims to this day does so, then it becomes a petty "stop bugging us while we mourn our dead heroes" stance. And it is a really fucking insane thing if one repeats the old myths in the same breath - Japan wasn't imperialistic, it was fighting against colonialism. The west made us do it. War rape happens everywhere. Hey, look at all the suffering of our people. Oh btw some women's dignity was harmed by unnamed perpetrators. Previous prime ministers already apologized. Let's commemorate the heroism of our dead who fought against horrible odds. They are the heroes.

Where does he get the right to say such things?

[K. A. Pital]

The German apology is really much more sincere: the victims are mentioned as victims, the resisting are mentioned as heroes, regardless of whether communist, church, military deserter, etc. Note how Weizsäcker first mentions everyone who was killfucked by the Nazis - and only then carefully mentions that Germany mourns its own compatriots who died... um... killing other people, but I guess no one is perfect.

Comparing to Abe, who starts with "More than three million of our compatriots lost their lives during the war", putting Japan firmly in the victim role, this is like hell and heaven.

At the very least, however, he did say Japan will stick to "never again" repeating war and resorting to any sort of force to settle disputes. But time will tell if these were honest words...

And he's right, people in Asia expressed tolerance of Japan, they accepted them, more or less, not as pariahs but as partners. This is good grounds to keep the apology intact, Abe-san!

[mr friendly guy]

Shinzou Abe was born ten years after the war ended, and I don't think he automatically needs to apologise for crimes committed by others before he was in any position to protest. All he needs to do is recognise them as "those assholes whose greed and bigotry got millions of innocent people killed" instead of as people to be admired.

He is not apologising for himself, he is apologising for the nation which he is the leader of. A nation which clearly did exist at that time.

On the second point, he doesn't even do that very well. Given how Japan kind of dug up their war criminals, reburied them in their most holy of sites for the purpose of honouring them. You would think Abe would at least criticise the private owners for doing so even if the government isn't supposed to interfere.

Moreover when the "average" Japanese at the time didn't think it was weird for a newspaper article talking about 2 Japanese soldiers having competition to see who can kill the most Chinese civilians, I don't think they have the excuse of blaming it on just the leaders or the average people saying "we didn't know." If he was going to appropriate blame to all the assholes, he would have a big group. I think someone once described this as the banality of evil.

[Adam Reynolds]

Not to justify Japan's actions in WW2, but the primary factor that lead to this is racism. The problem was that Imperial Japan was in the position of trying to act as an imperialist, as they had learned from the West, a century too late, when all of the possible territories one could take were already claimed by Western powers. That left China.

And Japanese tactics were a form of the same brand of racism that led to Wounded Knee in the American Indian wars.

[cmdrjones]

The German apology is really much more sincere: the victims are mentioned as victims, the resisting are mentioned as heroes, regardless of whether communist, church, military deserter, etc. Note how Weizsäcker first mentions everyone who was killfucked by the Nazis - and only then carefully mentions that Germany mourns its own compatriots who died... um... killing other people, but I guess no one is perfect.

Comparing to Abe, who starts with "More than three million of our compatriots lost their lives during the war", putting Japan firmly in the victim role, this is like hell and heaven.

At the very least, however, he did say Japan will stick to "never again" repeating war and resorting to any sort of force to settle disputes. But time will tell if these were honest words...

And he's right, people in Asia expressed tolerance of Japan, they accepted them, more or less, not as pariahs but as partners. This is good grounds to keep the apology intact, Abe-san!

I would point out though that the situation is even muddier than THAT.... for example, we can admire the heroism of German 12th and 9th armies under Walter Wenck even though they WERE Nazis.... they refused to commit mass suicide and instead fought a rear guard action against the Soviets to allow civilians to escape west and cross allied lines... is that not Heroic? If it is simply NOT being a bastard for once, then it could be called heroic (little h) in comparison to their earlier Nazi-ing across Europe, no?

[Metahive]

Not to justify Japan's actions in WW2, but the primary factor that lead to this is racism. The problem was that Imperial Japan was in the position of trying to act as an imperialist, as they had learned from the West, a century too late, when all of the possible territories one could take were already claimed by Western powers. That left China.

And Japanese tactics were a form of the same brand of racism that led to Wounded Knee in the American Indian wars.

Yeah, racism. By the Japanese towards all non-japanese. They were into that way before Perry's black ships forced them out of their isolation. I mean, why do you think they had shut the island off in the first place? Because they wanted to hog all the beach property for themselves? No, xenophobia. They also showed remarkable cruelty when they went on their first imperialist adventure in the Imjin War at the end of the 16th century, foreshadowing for what was to come.

Also, did the european imperialists ever cut people up and rubbed feces into the wounds on a regular basis? Because the Japanese did. They also bombed entire areas in China with biological agents to depopulate them. Sure you can argue that the Japanese learned from the Europeans, but they were model pupils who went above and beyond the examples set by their teachers.

[K. A. Pital]

Europeans forcibly castrated resisting locals. But yeah, the Japanese learned everything and added some more.

[Thanas]

What's the source on that?

[cmdrjones]

What's the source on that?

Well... compulsory sterilization starts here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

as far as actual CASTRATION... that depends on who you believe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
http://www.quora.com/What-are-your-view ... ee-details

[K. A. Pital]

What's the source on that?

The British were castrating Pashtuns in Pakistan (a method they learned from the locals) and later Africans in Kenya in their torture centers. I don't have the sources at hand, sorry. I'll get them in the evening.

[Thanas]

Wait, is that in the recent book on the Mau-Mau rebellion (the ones that made some waves in the British press)? If so, I got it somewhere.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, I think it is one of the Mau Mau rebellion accounts; and as for British Raj-era castrations, I will have to skim the internet to find it again...

[Metahive]

So, topic is european atrocities that the Japanese copied and CmdrJones brings up the woes of black people enslaved by Arabs.

Can anyone here tell me what game he's playing and why this shit is relevant here? Did he just hear "european crimes against humanity" and decided to play Tu Quoque out of principle? I mean seeing as to how he's a religious reactionary who thinks the Nazis are preferable over ISIS, it's telling he goes Arab-bashing in a thread not actually referencing anything directly from the Middle East.

[cmdrjones]

So, topic is european atrocities that the Japanese copied and CmdrJones brings up the woes of black people enslaved by Arabs.

Can anyone here tell me what game he's playing and why this shit is relevant here? Did he just hear "european crimes against humanity" and decided to play Tu Quoque out of principle? I mean seeing as to how he's a religious reactionary who thinks the Nazis are preferable over ISIS, it's telling he goes Arab-bashing in a thread not actually referencing anything directly from the Middle East.

I was replying to the subject about castration as a specific punishment for rebellion or as a way to control slaves... The only specific instances I could find quickly were about Arabs enslaving blacks. Now, as for the "nazis are preferable to ISIS" you may retract THAT little lie immediately. I stated specifically that I would buy ammunition for the Totenkopf division if they were to SHAMBLE FORTH FROM THEIR GRAVES... which means I prefer fantasy undead Nazis to ISIS.... so please sir, learn how to read, and perhaps comprehend a simple analogy with a joke attached to it. My gosh there are some tone deaf and humorless people on this board.

Secondly, if the Arab slavers DID enslave Africans by the hundreds of thousands and castrate them.... how can that possibly be construed as "arab bashing"?
When we go after Confederates or nazis or Belgians it is rightly understood that we are talking about real life crimes.... we're not "bashing", right?

[Thanas]

Jones, you better apologize for calling metahive a liar, because you chose your words poorly and it is quite easy to make that inference from your words. In fact, this reads like backpedalling.

[cmdrjones]

Yeah, I think it is one of the Mau Mau rebellion accounts; and as for British Raj-era castrations, I will have to skim the internet to find it again...

This article references the book : Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ology.html

[K. A. Pital]

Um... I was talking about the British Raj actions in Pakistan, the Mau Mau rebellion we already figured out, cmdrjones.

I also agree that talking about Arab slavers (or indeed, any slavers) is not Arab bashing, for the record. Although not immediately relevant, it does show that this tactic existed, and maybe it is relevant to the discussion in that it reinforces the universality of such atrocities.

Hope this will end tangent and get the discussion back on track.

[Metahive]

I was replying to the subject about castration as a specific punishment for rebellion or as a way to control slaves... The only specific instances I could find quickly were about Arabs enslaving blacks. Now, as for the "nazis are preferable to ISIS" you may retract THAT little lie immediately. I stated specifically that I would buy ammunition for the Totenkopf division if they were to SHAMBLE FORTH FROM THEIR GRAVES... which means I prefer fantasy undead Nazis to ISIS.... so please sir, learn how to read, and perhaps comprehend a simple analogy with a joke attached to it. My gosh there are some tone deaf and humorless people on this board.

I won't retract anything since I don't accept your parody retcon, your whole post history puts that "just joking" backpedal into question.

Secondly, if the Arab slavers DID enslave Africans by the hundreds of thousands and castrate them.... how can that possibly be construed as "arab bashing"?
When we go after Confederates or nazis or Belgians it is rightly understood that we are talking about real life crimes.... we're not "bashing", right?

I call it bashing because your introduced it to this thread in a gratuitous manner when the question was BTW asked explictely about sources of white people crimes. So yes, Arab bashing for the purpose of comitting a transparent Tu Quoque.

I also agree that talking about Arab slavers (or indeed, any slavers) is not Arab bashing, for the record.

If it's brought up completely unsolícited in a topic not related to the people or their region then I call it bashing. If people bring up Stalin's crimes in unrelated topics I'd call it Russian bashing too.