Talk:Japanese war crimes/Archive 3

message: 58.136.72.160 you may worship Shôwa but the fact is that he was very ambiguous about Yasukuni. You want references, there is an ENTIRE chapter in Hirohito and war by Peter Wetzler in which he analyse in details the relationship between Hirohito and Tôjô.  From p. 195 : "The emperor's trust in Tôjô's handling of affairs is confirmed by his support during the war and his statements about him immediately after. Had he not been convinced of his former prime minister's correcteness and sincerity, he certainly would have blamed him for the calamity that overtook the nation. Tôjô and Kido were among the few who were spared the emperor's criticism."  Shôwa did in fact said to liaison officer Hidenari Terasaki that Tôjô was a "loyal servant"...
--Flying tiger 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  58.136.72.160's love for Hirohito

message: The sections on later investigations and Japans cover up efforts were merged. Some stated that Japans coverup efforts were POV. I still think Toyo Ishii's testimony needs to be included, If your going to edit that section please do not delete the references or the names of individuals who testified. Thanks.--4.23.83.100 11:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The victim of 731 forces is Chinese and Russian. It is being written in the testimony to Ishi. Scamp it! Korean.　--211.3.120.137 11:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Later investigations/Japans coverup efforts

message: Why is there a neutrality dispute put up? This is a good article with facts and statistics, and despite the nature of the subject, not biased at all.
I'm going to remove the NPOV heading, and I guess if you want, you can put it back up, but please, provide a good reason as to why it should be there. Previous unsigned comment by User:24.9.29.236.
:Exactly, a need for specific references is not a NPoV dispute. We need a justification for the tag. User:Northwind12 is doing this and is also persistently changing the definition of comfort women from "sex slaves" to "prositutes". Whether one agrees with it or not, the allegation is that they were sex slaves. There would be no basis for/discussion of comfort women as a war crime if everyone agreed that they were prostitutes. Prostitutes in wartime are not, as a matter of course, victims of war crimes. And plainly most people do not agree that it was merely a matter of prostitution. Grant65 | Talk 05:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Comfort women (慰安婦, ianfu?) is a euphemism for prostitute not for sex slave. This is right clearly. Of course employing prostitutes is not a war crime, and all of them don't make allegation that they were sex slaves. Northwind12 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, comfort women is euphemism for both prostitution and sexual slavery, and as Flying tiger's new paragraph shows, there is evidence of coercion. Grant65 | Talk 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how the "broader definition of coercion" can be construed as not involving implied force of some kind. Grant65 | Talk 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comfort women 

message: I have moved the new material on this to the section on non-Japanese personnel, higher up in the article, where I feel it is more appropriate. In its original location it tended to convey an impression that all Korean guards (or only Korean guards) were torturers. Grant65 | Talk 07:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean POW guards

message: This is a part of the "Debate in Japan" section:
 However, the peace groups and the left also generally consider the bombing of Japanese civilians by the Allies, particularly the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to be unjust and/or a violation of the international law. The left is also accused of being soft on Soviet atrocities.
I'm not sure how that is at all relevant to the said section. The part where this is from can be understood either as "the left in Japan condemns Japanese war crimes, but fails to see the justice in the A-bombings" or else as "the left in Japan criticises the A-bombs, therefore their opinion is irrelevant". Either way, the section should be reworded or removed, it's between-the-lines POV. TomorrowTime 05:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate in Japan

message: The Japanese government officially honours war service by all those who died in wartime, including "listed war criminals". Some Japanese people believe such service is above all other considerations, even though war crimes are unacceptable. It is for this reason that Japanese leaders visit the Yasukuni Shrine. Emperor Hirohito himself refused to visit Yasukuni after Class A war criminals were enshrined there in 1978. However, he never blamed leaders such as Hideki Tojo, who was Prime Minister in 1941-44, calling him a "loyal servant".
The above section needs to be removed there are some major misconceptions, 
1.)The Japanese Governmemt is ambigious to say the least. The first line of the above text is the postion of the Shinto leaders of Yasukuni Jinja, State Shintoism ended after WWII. The "Yasukuni" position is completly independent from the govt. 
2.) Line two used weasle words and should be removed.
3.) Line three, Former PM Koizumi and Gov. of Tokyo Ishihara have both made it clear that their visits to Yasukuni are highly personal, and in no way to be considered "official state business" Both men lost family in WWII that are enshrined at Yasukuni.
In Shintoism ones deeds good or bad, are not connected to them after they die.
4.) Line four, This statement is a bit closer to the truth, Hirohito and his son the current Emperor have not visited Yasukuni not do the enshirnment of the war criminals but do to the fact that they are compling with the Japanese constitution. The post WWII Constitution written by Gen. MacArthur and his JAGs ended the notion that the Emperor is a living Kami. The leaders of Yasukuni reject this notion and if an Emperor showed up there it would be a sign they they supported the Yasukuni view.
Yasukuni was built by Emperor Meiji, Hirohito's grandfather, any person who died in the service of the Emperor would be enshirned at Yasukuni as a Kami. 
5.) Line five, Hirohito never blamed anyone for the mistakes or crimes of WWII but himself. When he met with MacArthur he took full responsibility for all actions both political and military and fully accepted MacArthur's authority and any fate bestowed upon him that MacArthur saw fit. His only request was that the Japanese people be fed. Tojo however was the one who got the blame, MacArthur knew if the Emperor was tried and killed for war crimes the Japanese would be completely emotionally crushed. Tojo was at the top of the list, he died so Emperor could live, he gave his life in service of the Emperor, hence he met the criteria to be enshrined at Yasukuni Jinja.
Conclusions, this section is titled Position of the Japanese govt. however, the views of Yasukuni leaders and former Emperor Hirohito as well as what some Japanese leaders do during their personal time does not constitute an official govt position.
--Caligvla 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say makes sense and I defer to your knowledge in this matter. Grant65 | Talk 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Grant65 that you make a compelling argument.  If you have citations to back it up I hope you'll add it to the Yasukuni Shrine article if you haven't already. Cla68 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever Hirohito may or may not have said, his statements do not reflect the Japanese Govt. current position, the Imperial House has no authority or sphere of influence in Japanese Govt today.--Caligvla 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The position of the Japanese government

message: I am not a Japanese war crimes denier. I am sure they were responsible directly and indirectly for the deaths of millions. The CIA estimated up to 1,000,000 Indonesians in less than one year in 1965 so it's not even a quibble about numbers. My quibble is with Rummel. He's a crackpot and hardly an objective academic. He has an agenda and that's it. It's like including John Lott's work as a serious, peer reviewed source or citation. To the best of my knowledge, Rummel has never been peer reviewed. He has his own page. Can't we keep his brand of propaganda contained in his own wiki entry?
Wikkid Won
:What's his agenda? How do you know he's never been peer reviewed? Grant | Talk 10:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "No serious academic would be caught dead doing it. It would ruin their reputation." I don't buy this; Rummel is based at the University of Hawaii. What's to stop academics at prestigious international universities from critiquing him? You also haven't explained or justified your use of POV terms like "crackpot", "junk", "insane", "nut", "silliness", "crap" and "propaganda". Grant | Talk 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So what exactly is your problem with Rummel? You still haven't said. Grant | Talk 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your criticism seems to be all character-based, am I right? That is not relevant here. What about his methodology in countind the dead? That would be an issue in relation to this article. Grant | Talk 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: R.J. Rummel