Talk:Occupation of Japan

message: Where there any armed resistance or insurgency?
--Duemellon 13:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance 

message: Does anyone have any kind of source whatsoever for the article's claim that trade unions were on the verge of instigating a full communist revolution, but all backed off because of MacArthur's fighting words?  This sounds a lot more like wishful thinking. MrVoluntarist 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's been long enough.  I removed it, but saved the text in a comment. Will re-insert when there's enough substantiation. MrVoluntarist 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imminent communist revolution? 

message: I feel bad to give a Start assessment to such a long article, with so many pictures, and which, it is obvious, quite a bit of work has gone into. But the Occupation is such an incredibly major event, not only militarily, but also politically, economically, and culturally, there is a lot more to be said here. Particularly since I have heard recently of some scholarly texts and articles which take a rather contrary view on the Occupation, asserting that it was not as selflessly benevolent, as organized, or as positive as we all are taught it was. I am afraid I do not have the names of these sources, let alone the texts themselves, but I will look into it. 
The jist was that the US didn't really have some magical knowledge of exactly how to handle the Japanese Occupation perfectly. The Showa Constitution and other laws put into place by the Occupation government were extremely strict, and were essentially knee-jerk reactions to the causes of the rise of militarism and outbreak of the war, with little concern or understanding for how a peaceful, productive nation could survive and develop under this system. Also, as the Cold War began to emerge shortly after WWII, the US apparently made an about-face in their treatment of the Japanese military. We disarmed them, wrote into their constitution a provision against having a military, and then turned right around and asked for their help in the Korean War and in the Cold War in general. I do apologize again that I do not have these sources on me, and am essentially just recounting my memories of a conversation with a friend. But suffice it to say, this is the kind of topic that entire books have been written on. This article is an excellent start, as it stands right now, but there is much much more to be written. LordAmeth 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. approved the measure on the removal of a military force, but the MacArthur administration did not initiate it - that came from a Japanese newly-elected official. This is shown in the article.50.111.19.178 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: If I were a Japanese female I would be extremely offended by the above paragraph (Negative Occupation).
The claim to know what "Everyone" thinks is very conceited.  Since most women fall into one of the categories
listed above, the writer has insulted the entire nation of Japan by stating that the current population is, or
is decended from, prostitutes.
As for Japanese culture, it is alive and well.  Imagine what it would have been like under Communism.
If the writer believes that Japan was better off in 1940 than it is today, tell that to all the Japanese woman
that now have the right to vote.  Tell that to Japanese women that have become engineers and politicians, making
Japan one of the most powerful nations in the world -- all without the use of arms.
: I don't think he was saying all women were prostitutes, but that average women were in situations where they had to do it.  That's not unusual during an occupation.  Look at what happens in other countries with extreme poverty and a lot of servicemen around.  Also, I don't see what communism has to do with anything. 66.245.195.30 12:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignorance 

message: The article has the current flag of Japan (which is the same flag of the former Empire of Japan) as being the flag of occupied Japan, but didn't the Allies ban the Japanese flag throughout the occupation (similar to their ban on German symbols throught the occupation of Germany)? In Germany they provided for a modified C-pennant as a provisional civil ensign (see: Allied Occupation Zones in Germany and Flag of Germany). Wasn't there a similar ensign for Japan (a simple blue above red swallow-tailed ensign if I remember correctly)?72.27.77.144 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Flag?

message: The "Legacy" section of this article is simply a naive non-neutral consideration. It dismiss all the activities of the founders of the LDP and their links to the surviving showa regime leaders and "behind the scene" activists such as Yoshio Kodama. It also omit the work done bu the American Central Intelligence Agency against the Socialists and Communists. All the section should be reworded. 
--Flying tiger 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly an overly simplified, grade-school level assessment of the situation. Also, if this section gets rewritten, it would definitely be worthwhile to highlight notable changes in policy that occurred as part of the "Reverse Course" in reaction to the start of the Cold War. --Julian Grybowski 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy, a POV section 

message: Shouldn't it be "The Occupation of Japan" or "The Occupation of Japan by Allied Forces"
User5802 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Occupation of Japan" is, however, the far more common term, at least in my experience. LordAmeth 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And your (LordAmeth's) choice would be "occupation of Japan"? I don't have any particular opinion on this matter (the current and suggested names both look unproblematic), but clearly we should follow some standard academic term. Google gives 156,000 hits for "occupation of Japan" and 351,000 for "occupied japan". But if "occupied japan" isn't a common term as the name of a chapter or book, then that should be avoided, as a general principle. -- Taku  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I am surprised to see so many Google hits for a capitalised "Occupied Japan", but even so, I feel that this is more of a descriptor, and that the title of the subject, if it were to be in a textbook chapter heading or the like as you suggest, would be "The Occupation", "The American Occupation", or "The Occupation of Japan." Thus, I do indeed suggest "Occupation of Japan" as the title here - the subject in question is not in any case Japan, but the Occupation as an event and as a period in Japanese history. LordAmeth 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I'm with you completely. Sorry for misinterpreting your prior statement. LordAmeth 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I'm glad that went through quickly and smoothly :) LordAmeth 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title of this article seems wrong 

message: Since no one else has suggested it, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that this be moved. I don't believe I've ever seen "Occupied Japan" used in a text with a capital "o", that is, as a proper noun. More common terms include "the Occupation", "the Occupation of Japan", "the Japanese Occupation" (though some confuse this for the Japanese occupation of various other territories such as China, Korea, Taiwan, Burma, etc), "the American Occupation", "the US Occupation of Japan", etc.
As can clearly be seen on the pages Japanese Occupation (a disambig), and Allied Occupation Zones in Germany, there is, contrary to Dimadick's assertion, no real consistent standard for avoiding naming the occupying power. Thus, I suppose, we could leave this open to further options. LordAmeth 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your (LordAmeth's) choice would be "occupation of Japan"? I don't have any particular opinion on this matter (the current and suggested names both look unproblematic), but clearly we should follow some standard academic term. Google gives 156,000 hits for "occupation of Japan" and 351,000 for "occupied japan". But if "occupied japan" isn't a common term as the name of a chapter or book, then that should be avoided, as a general principle. -- Taku  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I am surprised to see so many Google hits for a capitalised "Occupied Japan", but even so, I feel that this is more of a descriptor, and that the title of the subject, if it were to be in a textbook chapter heading or the like as you suggest, would be "The Occupation", "The American Occupation", or "The Occupation of Japan." Thus, I do indeed suggest "Occupation of Japan" as the title here - the subject in question is not in any case Japan, but the Occupation as an event and as a period in Japanese history. LordAmeth 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I'm with you completely. Sorry for misinterpreting your prior statement. LordAmeth 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I'm glad that went through quickly and smoothly :) LordAmeth 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I've moved the page, per the above discussion.  Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm glad that went through quickly and smoothly :) LordAmeth 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moved

message: The article currently states that "MacArthur arrived in Tokyo on August 30, and immediately decreed several laws: ... No Allied personnel were to eat the scarce Japanese food.'".  If I recall correctly, Embracing Defeat spins this rather differently: MacArthurs wasn't concerned about limited Japanese supplies, he was concerned about his soldiers getting poisoned. Jpatokal (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search for it in Google books ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scarce food 

message: Content was copy/pasted word for word (preserving poor spelling in the original) from Agricultural Land Reform in Postwar Japan: Experiences and Issues Ling.Nut 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted addition of Land reform section 

message: Straw poll on the issue of flags:
* Use the Hinomaru
:Support Include an extended discussion of the relevant issues in the Flag of Japan article; place one or two sentences plus a link to Flag of Japan in this article. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support As I already wrote the reason on the above.--W/mint-Talk- 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support with the addition of a citation or two explaining this issue, or a link to the Flag of Japan article discussing this issue. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support --Saintjust (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support LordAmeth (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support It was restricted but never changed.--Jjok (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support The ensing lacks official sources and it seems just an ensign for ships. Hinomaru was called national flag.--Mochi (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support --Azukimonaka (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Support there are no sites so far that states that hinomaru is the national flag of occupied Japan. Just like how Residential flag represented Korea during Japanese occupation, and United Nations flag represents Kosovo today... the ensign represents the occupied Japan.   --Kingj123 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Support per Kingj123. Ling.Nut, you're kidding? All member of the WPJapan gathered above. Japan was defeated and then surrender to US, which is fact. You should've notified editors into WPUSA and relevant countries of the matter. It is not conclusive yet. --Appletrees (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment I notified the editor who cast the lone dissenting vote, here Ling.Nut (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it was closed early, but I am not sure if we needed to ask every country that occupied Japan to ask about how they feel. Also, as we mentioned before, we had no assertion that the ensign was a national flag, except from typos from websites. We do know for the Hinomaru that, from 1947 on, it was allowed to use on federal buildings and designated as the "national flag" according to the letters and books we found. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag issue: straw poll, not RfC 

message: Can someone decent please add a section explaining the negative aspects of the Occupation, it reads somewhat like a piece of American propaganda at the moment. Adding the negatives and clarifying the positives is needed to keep this article neutral...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishHaremOtaku (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious lack of negative viewpoint on occupation 

message: I have removed the following map from the article as no citiation was provided for it in the article or on the image's page, and there's no explanation of whether it was ever accepted. It should only be re-added if citations can be provided, and a map of the actual occupation zones would be more useful anyway. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we have it removed? The Japanese wiki also has it. Ominae (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed occupation map 

message: I have to ask where you got this information?  The Allies never had any agreement to divide Japan.  The Soviets wished to occupy Hokkaido, but where forestalled because Japan surrendered and Truman began making it clear that the Yalta Agreement did not give Russia any right to occupy any part of the Japanese Home Islands.Jmacatty (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we have it removed? The Japanese wiki also has it. Ominae (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement to divide Japan 

message: Is this really the case? The Japanese press was censored during the 1930s and 1940s and the Japanese government routinely didn't allow bad news to be printed (for instance, all knowledge of the Battle of Midway was supressed for some months (years?)). It's hard to see how the Allies made the Japanese media any less free. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Nick, I presume you agree with me that censorship by itself has a negative impact. Arguing that Allied occupation censure does not have a negative impact simply because it was preceded by Japanese censure seems a bit cheeky. Would a hypothetical post-war censure in the US not have had a negative impact simply because the U.S. had had wartime censure, ergo there would have been no difference? Anyways, as one of the the sources states, the Allied censure was even worse, you were not even allowed to let people know it existed. But fine, you have made your position clear - as you lately have done on so many far east related articles I've edited - and I've made my position clear. By the way, what do you propose we do, move it to a new section called "neutral impact"?--Stor stark7 Speak 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship as a 'negative impact'? 

message: I removed the POV banner that had been placed in April 08 as the dispute to which it refers appears fairly non-existent, other than a brief note placed here on the talk page that has been subsequently ignored. Given that there appears to be no dispute, and the original poster's complaint that there was no coverage of any negative consequences has been (as far as I can see) reasonably responded to with what is there now, I personally think it's removable. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV banner 

message: This entire article on Japan's Occupation resounds with pessimism and focuses too much on negative aspects of the occupation. If you want the truth read American Caesar. The occupation was a resounding success and it must be understood by the reader of the article that very rarely if ever has a conquered nation been treated so charitable and equitable as was post WWII Japan. America infused liberty and self determination, our most prized ideals, into Japan's culture and law. Japan accepted these ideals and transformed themselves from a militaristic feudalistic nationalistic state to one of the very greatest nations on earth in a matter of a few years. Focusing on the "negative occupation" does a diservice to modern Japan and twists the altruistic intentions of MacArthur and his SCAB. It undermines MacArthur's wisdom and deep understanding of Asian peoples. This article needs some serious revision. In its current state it stinks of anti-Americanism and hatred of the US military. I am deeply offended and call for a rewrite. I'll do it myself if necessary. Mezz07 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please put new comments at the bottom of the article. Second, you can't write an article based entirely on a single source; just because you happen to think American Caesar is the "truth" does not make it so.  However, if that source meets Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, you can certainly add additional information--it's quite common, when there is disagreement between reliable sources about how to interpret something for our articles to show more than one possible interpretation.  If there are any specific parts of the article that you think aren't based on reliable sources or are undue, please explain here and we can figure out what to do with them.  Finally, note that your issues about being "offended" or this doing a "disservice" to anyone have nothing whatsoever to do with how we edit articles.  For that matter, we don't even try to decide what the "truth" is--all we worry about is what is verified by sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with Qwyrxian, this article does present a more gloomy picture of the occupation period than that presented in mainstream histories so there are substantial areas in which it can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV concern?

message: An editor has made the claim that Taiwan was also placed under military occupation; however, the claim is actually highly contentious and should not be stated as fact (de facto Taiwan was detached from the Japanese empire and given/restored to China). The references used seem questionable. I would appreciate comment. Ngchen (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, calling this an 'occupation' doesn't seem appropriate. I've just reverted these changes. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan and military occupation 

message: The lead does a poor job of summarizing the article or of identifying the major issues. Apart from the excellent Dower quote it is useless. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass-deleting the content is not the answer. The quote that you added is fine, but it should probably go in another section of article. I however really don't agree with all this deleting and trimming. Keiiri (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: for example,the long discussion of the flag takes up far more attention than RS allow, and is in the wrong place.  The discussion of Allies in the lede is false--suggesting it was like Germany-- and it is based on footnote #1 on art history!! Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what flag you mean. It also flat-out says it's unlike Germany. The allies like the British Empire and China gained other parts of the Japanese Empire, like Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea, not Japan directly. It was an Allied occupation, not solely a US one. Keiiri (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the long flag section is under the surrender section. Taiwan & Korea are not covered here--because they were no longer part of Japan. The Allies had a very minor role in the activities covered in this article. Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article, they are indeed covered here. And the official name was still "Empire of Japan", it wasn't renamed until 1947. And from what I see, there was already a long discussion about the flags above. Keiiri (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't follow your argument--the RS cover the occupation of Japan -- and do not deal with Manchuria, Taiwan Korea which after Macarthur arrived had been 100% removed from Japan and were not under the Occupation.  Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what problem you're trying to make. The official name was still called '"Empire of Japan" until 1947. The name wasn't changed until 1947. Regardless, the article still covers those territories. And regardless, it was still an Allied occupation. Keiiri (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  no -- you are confused by terminology . It was an empire because there was an Emperor.  The occupation did not deal with Korea, Manchuria or Taiwan because those were no longer part of the Japanese Empire.  It was officially an Allied occupation that all the reliable sources agree that the other allies played only a minor role -- they had a symbolic presence of ceremonies, for example.  You seem unfamiliar with the basic reliable sources -- what sources are you using??? Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still an emperor regardless. The point is, those territories are still covered in the article. The article is fine, it doesn't give undue weight to the other Allies. That doesn't justify your anti-Japanese, pro-American bias. Keiiri (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

text: While MacArthur was powerful, the Emperor was not. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Japan could have officially cared less. There was an independently elected administration there. It was a separate country. Korea had to "invite" the United Nations to participate. Student7 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what discussion implies about "other" territories. Britain re-gained Hong Kong, which it had title to until 1999, China re-gained Formosa/Taiwan, which it had lost to the Empire in 1895, both North and South Korean re-gained their autonomy, which it had held until the Treaty of Surrender was signed. After that, none of these places were any concern of Japan. Student7 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this discussion has become very off topic, I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore. I never said anything about the Korean War. And those territories are already mentioned in the article, including the map. I did not add them, and I don't care about them. If you want to remove any mention of them, go ahead. Keiiri (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lead 

message: "Before and during the war, Japanese education was based on the German system, with "Gymnasium" (selective grammar schools) and universities to train students after primary school."
This section about school reform seems to contain an inaccuracy. Specifically German grammar schools are not selective (as far as I know), but rather German High schools are selective, splitting students into the the Gymnasium (college preparatory), Realschule (intermediate schools), and Hauptschule (vocational education) schools. This split usually occurs after the fourth grade in Germany. 
I know nothing about the Japanese education system, but would it not be more accurate for the article to read as follows?
"Before and during the war, Japanese education was based on the German system, with "Gymnasium" (selective high schools) and universities to train students after primary school."
:Sounds good. What the current section is lacking is a WP:RS. One or more should be used to support your rewording. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education reform 

message: Subsections on Communists seem unduly long considering they were a third party well behind the other two. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Communists

message: The the article mentions Japanese-Americans serving in the occupation at Japanese American service in World War II#After the Surrender of Japan Fortunatestars (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese American service

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Occupation of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070807063408/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=13261 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=13261
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Occupation of Japan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Mainichi":
From Beate Sirota Gordon: 
From Constitution of Japan: 
Reference named "one":
From Independent State of Croatia: 
From Beate Sirota Gordon: Dower, pp. 365-367
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Occupation of Japan]] 

message: What does it mean the "return" of Chichi Jima"?  Chichi Jima was originally and first settled by White people, with an American leader, in the very early 1800's.  Tokyo did not have sovereignty over Chichi Jima at the time and there was no Japan, in the sense of a central government.  Based on the historical facts, the word "return" does not apply.  It was first an American colony.Starhistory22 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "CRITICISM" section 

message: There seems to be a mini-move war going on over the article's title. As it hasn't been discussed, I've moved it back to 'Occupation of Japan'. As far as I'm aware this is the common name, and as there are no other instances of Japan being occupied by other countries there doesn't seem to be a need for the 'Allied' at the front. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Occupation of Japan was carried out by the United States and the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces, which consisted of troops from the United Kingdom (Great Britain), Australia, New Zealand and India.  Allied Occupation seems the more appropriate title. Smokesignal11 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: So, it says here on wiki that the occupation ended in the 50s; how can anyone say it ended in the 50s when clearly, nearly 10,000 acres of a very small nation were under the control of the US military in 2016. This is misleading, and a huge misrepresentation of the truth. How many more acres are really under the control of the US today? How many laws are still under the influence of Americans? Why do I ask this? The same is true in Germany, and in my opinion, it is time for the people to know the truth, or at least be aware that there are multiple perceptions of the truth. Regardless of a person's individual perception of World War Two and the participation of the Axis' role in the war, how is it justice to refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of these nations for decades?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/us-japan-okinawa-land-return/index.html 2001:569:5250:500:29E1:B170:AC92:EEB8 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth; Perspective; Reality; and the Occupation 

message: There was a redirect to the page from Operation Blacklist, I can find no reference to operation blacklist in the Japanese occupation primary page.  If there was something related to the Japanese Occupation called operation Blacklist. I'll check up on this again by 3/1/2024 to see if any stake holders for the page know anything about operation blacklist as it relates to the occupation.  Other wise, I'll remove the link eximo (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Operation Blacklist" was the original plan for the Occupation of Japan and Korea. The occupation of Japan followed many of its ideas. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Blacklist