Talk:Tanaka Memorial

message: Blaming it on the USSR or China with no references. Sigh, wiki really is a joke.-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.22 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathetic wiki propaganda

message: Stating that it is a forgery is too POV. There are still many people believing that it is NOT a forgery, even though evidence suggested that it is so. As two of the external links provided DID suggest that it is factual, the article should at least include such 'suggestions'. Also, some parts of the document is actually corresponding to true Japanese ideas,  so the article is quite misleading. Herunar 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I was researching the life of the late Herbert W. Armstrong for a new media book when I came across your discussion here and a most interesting article published in February 1934 about the Tanaka Memorial: http://www.coghomeschool.org/site/cog_archives/plain_truth/1934/02%20February%201934.pdf.
This reference is to the pdf copy of the February 1934 edition of 'The Plain Truth' magazine、volume one、number one and this is what it says on the front page: "The amazing Tanaka Memorial recently discovered ..." So now we can move the date back to 1934. Not only that、but Herbert W. Armstrong in later life became great friends with many in the Japanese Diet、including prime ministers and he also had a relationship with the brother of the late Hirohito.
I believe that this entry moves the goal posts back quite a long way towards 1927. = JLRI、February 11、2006
Easiest way to check the authencity of the memorial is to do "find" with "山縣有朋" in text format.  A dead guy can't attend a treaty negotiation. I re-worded reference to Chinese textbook.  It states that the memorial is mentioned without clarifying it as a forgery. As I said、it says more about the nature of the current Communist policy than about Japanese national policy during WWII. FWBOarticle 23:25、12 February 2006 (UTC)
: your link is broken, BTW. If it's my PC, I apologise. Ecth (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link works fine on my mac over a year later.  It was your PC.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Link works fine on my PC --Friend2008 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well if you think that it is a forgery、how do you explain this? 

message: The main section of this article has become a poorly written cauldron of back-and-forth arguing. One side of it cites the jp wikipedia and the other a bunch of dead links. It is made of fail and needs rewriting to include cited opinions on the Memorial's authenticity or lack thereof. 213.243.160.224 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. Let's get editing! :) Ecth (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromised article 

message: If anyone is reading this and has supplies one of the FIVE statements in the article then please cite references
Or better yet, replace them with reliable, well referenced statements, as I intend to when I can find any on the net (surprisingly difficult) Ecth (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References! 

message: On January 1, 2008, a Japanese newspaper Tokyo Shimbun reported that a Chinese historian group admitted that this "Tanaka Memorial" had been lower reliability and suggested that the most of the Chinese historians regard the document as a forgery, in a collaborative research meeting held in September 2007. I don't understand why some users
insistently edit this article and make an erroneous assertion. 220.219.92.222 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note for Editors

message: I rather think that the mention of Scientology on this page is utterly irrelevant to the article.
:It's an example of the influence of the idea of the Tanaka Memorial persisting for decades... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The relationship was an association of ideas in Hubbard's brain only; however, the "Tenyaka Memorial" is a moderately significant concept in the history of Scientology, and Hubbard clearly derived it from his remembering (or misremembering) of the Tanaka Memorial. AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

message: This sentence has a vague antecedent; the reference does not at all support the idea that most scholars "rank" the Tanaka Memorial (whatever that means) between the one hoax and the Protocols. It doesn't even explain what it means for it to be ranked like that, and frankly I believe does not add anything to the article, so I am removing it again. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

message: An image used in this article, File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The name seems rather odd to me. Is it typical in Japan for a planning document to be called a "memorial"? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered the same. From its description in the article, it sounds more like a memorandum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.255.22 (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any update on this? The name really seems wrong. --Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The purported document is a "memorial" in the sense of a memorial to the throne (上奏文), which was indeed quite common for military documents in Imperial-era Japan, see for instance 近衛上奏文 (1945). You'd be right to be skeptical about its content and style which is bizarre for a memorial - because, as historians now agree, it's a hoax document. In any case the translation "Tanaka Memorial" had been used by English translations of this fake document since 1934, so historical texts follow this translation. Ceconhistorian (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Memorial"? 

message: Is is 
:a) The Tanaka Memorial
:b) The "Tanaka Memorial"
:c) The Tanaka Memorial
I would say that its apparent length suggests option b, but all are used in the article interchangeably, which cannot be correct.
2600:1004:B12C:C5D7:78AC:D0B0:2F22:3ED4 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to call it 

message: I added Iris Chang's report that Chinese textbooks took the memorial to be authentic but that John Dower concluded that "most scholars" did not. In order to test Dower's reliability, I did a search of Google Books for "Tanaka Memorial" HERE, and could not find any scholarly books based on research in Japanese or use of Japanese sources that found the memorial to be authentic. I may have missed one, but it is clear that Dower is being conservative in saying "most" scholars.ch (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead and "most scholars"

message: One problem with this article is that it focuses on the Tanaka Memorial being a forgery, and rather skates over the point that it accurately reflected Japanese thinking as regards China and the rest of east Asia at the time.</br> 
Also, how far away from that thinking was the world domination aspect, (which it's suggested somewhere) was just an embellishment by the forger? By 1940 (before the Pacific war had even started) they had their Hakko Ichiu policy (“the eight corners of the world under one roof”); a fair indication of the breadth of their ambition. If, as is probable, the Tanaka Memorial was a statement of Japanese ambition in an easily digestible form by someone's Intelligence agency, how much of the "world domination" bit was an embellishment, and how much was sober fact? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: "When the Allies searched for incriminating documents to support war crime charges following the surrender of Japan, no drafts or copies of anything corresponding to the Tanaka Memorial appeared among them; a Japanese language "original" has never been produced despite extensive research efforts."
This proves or disproves nothing.  If such a statement is going to be made in this article, it needs to add the elaboration that it is well-known and well-documented that, during the period between the emporer's speech of August 15, 1945, and the actual landing of American troops in mainland Japan about 10 days later, the Japanese government was furiously destroying documents related to the war.  Even Japanese authors who were eyewitnesses have written about the "huge bonfires" of military-related papers and orders.  If the Tanaka Memorial did exist -- as it or something very similar likely did -- it would be no surprise at all that every trace of it would have been burned in August 1945.  The absence of an extant copy is almost to be expected, not any kind of evidence that it never existed!Starhistory22 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This statement in the article is meaningless:  

message: Is there any evidence that he read this document? I noticed on Veterans Today article https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/06/16/nanking-massacre-interview-with-arimasa-kubo-and-moteki-hiromichi-part-ii/ purports that Shoichi Watanabe made this claim:
:“Before the US-Japan war, a false document called ‘Tanaka Memorial’ was written in China. This was a purported Japanese strategic planning document, in which Prime Minister Giichi Tanaka laid out for Emperor Hirohito a strategy to take over the world.
:“President Roosevelt, senators and congressmen read this forgery, and believed the lie that Japan had a malicious intention to take over Asia and the world. That became a cause for the US-Japan war. It is said that after reading it, Roosevelt decided to defeat Japan entirely. Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking, a best seller in the USA, is the same.”
If Watanabe did write that, does any evidence exist to support this claim? 70.51.193.44 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Roosevelt