This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
No consensus to delete. Deletion debate archived below. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that a country (China) that has, in the past, and to an extent continues to, opress its own people and commit atrocities, is constantly (You can't tell me that they don't encourage it, or at least tolerate it in a manner unlike their usual MO..) criticizing Japan for (obviously horrendous) actions comitted over sixty years ago and under a different government? ---Max J
The Japanese section and all the edits and re-edits seem pretty absurd to me. Let me give my humble Harvard-educated opinion (after taking a class on World War II no less) and as someone who has visited China, Japan (Yasukuni shrine included), Malaysia and Thailand. The current article is very apologist for Japan. Having recently visited China I will say yes, it is true that much anti-Japanese sentiment is flamed by an often corrupt government that prefers to direct its people anger at an external foe. That said, it doesn't take away from any accusations levied against Japan. If anything, it seems to confirm how much more the people in these countries suffered: first from Japanese invasion, then from from civil-war (China, Korea) or wars of 'liberation' (Vietnam for one), then from corrupt governments. In short, two wrongs don't make a right.
As for Japanese society, I made a point when I was browsing a bookstore in Japan to take a look at their history study preparation books (I read some Japanese). I noticed that the college ones are much more likely to mention war crimes (not that war itself isn't crime enough) than the high school ones. And neither did so to my satisfaction. This is true in the US as well - my high school textbooks certainly gazed over a great deal of controversial topics that college courses love to focus on. But something bothered me when it was in Japan. And I didn't know exactly why until I started questioning Japanese college students about it. It partly comes from having a more homogenous culture - they tend not question independently as much. So when the education ministry of Japan decides it will not cover a subject, it often never gets covered. You can have two societies - both with 'free speech' rights - but you need a respect for individual dissent to fully utilize that right. As a generalization, I did not find that respect in Japan. I remember one of the conversations I had. I showed college graduate an extremely right-wing and fanatical pamphlet from Yasukuni. She said something that translates best as 'Yes, it is the truth.' I remember saying to her that in English we have a saying about those who do not know their history. But perhaps it all got lost in the translation... -HarvardSpy
Delete this if it is not converted into a real article in 5 days. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or debating forum. --Jiang 09:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This reeks of anti-Japanese sentiment. jengod 17:20, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article is non-encyclopedic in that it sets forth a series of contentions without sources or facts. I'm not sure if this can even be rewritten into shape. 209.149.235.254 21:20, 19 Apr 2004(UTC)
Very interesting title if we can understand the stance of US goverment to the people of each defeated nation. But this article is written with anti-japanese emotion, by poor knowledge formed by Taiwanese education, and the contents is not essential, which result in tracing outward appearance. At a glance, there are many mistakes, though I'm not a historical specialist. It's politically charged editing. Did Japanese citizen massacre other race? Did you know Japan has not to pay any compensations by the treaty, which was intented by US government? Did you know Japanese children are taught that
"Japanese were the man who killed neighbors whom we should love. The criminal are the emperor, and your grand father."
And this comparison was often used by anti-japanesest in Japan or issue-exported neighbor country from Japan. Criminal worship? Nonsence. You are going to rob identity from Japanese. JDobby 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
It seems unfair to delete the page, so I added Japanese POV for neutrality.Poo-T 19 May 2004
Someone wrote additional writing within Japanese-side text without discussing. Some comments were just emotional/personal POV, with labelling "Japanese revisionist". But at least, he pointed one good point. This page should not focuse on China-Japan relation so much. I agree. The reason I wrote so much related to china, was simplly, most of thw writings in this page was written by Chinese POV, Chinese cultured people. But the Wiki Title is simply comparing Germany and Japan. The problem is, how we discuss about Japanese war-crime without talking about China and Korea. The Official complaints about Japanese Post-War processing, and Japanese Textbook come from only China and Korea. As a result, for Japanese, discussing the WW2 means 'talking mainly about China and Korea'.
Great job Acegikmo1! It's so many times better now. Thank you so much for taking to time to improve this. Now we have to consider renaming the article, since we aren't discussing the countries post WW2 in general. --Jiang 16:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think either of the last two are fine. Maybe spell out "World War II" in its entirety? This article covers more than reparations. --Jiang 23:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't get what you mean. Please cite what is biased. I tagged this since recent edits have been overly defensive of the Japanese - just because they have domestic laws forbiding such things doesn't mean their troops will not break such laws. I will get back to thsi once i get a better interenet connection. --Jiang 04:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would like to say the current version is much better than the original. However I don't believe this is a good article even in its current state. The issues raised could certainly be addressed elsewhere, but the point of it really is only to demonise Japan for "not apologising" by comparing it to the supposed model country, Germany. Otherwise why not have Italy in it as well? Why compare just two Axis powers? It's as I said - people make the comparision between Germany and Japan to use it as fuel in their campaign against Japan over WWII. The whole thing should be deleted OR changed dramatically to deal with ALL the Axis powers and their responses to WWII generally. John Smith's 13:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
To Jia. This is the second time you disputed the neutrality of this issue. Please list reasons and explain why they matter. Revth 09:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let me just say that I think this article, in my opinion, is badly organised. This is article discussing "guilt" of Japanese War crimes rather than responses, which explain why Japanese section is so large. No balance between Germany and Japan section either. FWBOarticle 03:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Each nation should have its own section before comparison section. Hermeneus 20:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Where is the source for this and how recent is this claim? I'm just curious myself.
Why should this article be restricted to two of the axis members? Get-back-world-respect 17:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is pretty much about japan. Only relevance to Germany is whether Japanese response is good enough in term of German response. Why not chuck most content to Japanese War Crime section? FWBOarticle 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is no mention of Austria as part of the Axis. Sure it was subjected to the Anschluss which many Austrians welcomed. No mention of the high proportion of Concentration Camp guards from Austria and no mention of reparations paid by Austria. (Finland let's face it had little choice but to resist the Soviets and to take what help they could). Yes Austria was subjected to the usual Nazi manipulations but no more than Germany 'proper'. Austria was NOT a 'victim' state like either Czech or Poland both of whose populations resisted the Nazis and were actively victimised by the Nazis. The Austrians who did suffer were the Austrian Jews but they weren't rounded up by external "German" Nazis they were rounded by fellow Austrians steeped in the same anti-semitic hatreds of Hitler himself (that famous native of Austria). Unlike both Poland and Czechoslovakia, Austria was not occupied (for long) by the Soviets AND was a beneficiary of the Marshall Plan a generous aid package which W Germany benefitted from but again NOT Czech, not Poland and other 'victim' states. And the Austrian resitance to Hitler? The Austrian Stauffenburg, the Austrian Bonhoeffer? And Jews are still fighting and only recently winning property back from the Austrian State who owned pieces of art by virtue of the Nazi period. I think there needs to be some serious review of the Austrian place in recent European history.
The Austrian Embassy website seeks to present Austria as a victim of Nazi aggression a period 'disasterous' for Austria, that takes some cheek!
Part of the article added on 12 February 2005 reads:
What's does "a single conclusion actions" mean? Also, in the section title "Korea (See also Korea under Japanese rule)", the (See also...) part should be italicised and placed one line below the section title. The section title "War Criminal And Yasukuni" should be renamed and lowercased to "War criminals and Yasukuni", or "War criminals and Yasukuni Shrine"—Tokek 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This article might be worthy, but it is confined a subject. It should be rewritten, merged or abandoned. Also needs citations. It's to controversial otherwise. --meatclerk 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Although it might be true the origins of this article may be biased, I believe the subject is a valid one and one that needs to be properly addressed.
Somewhere up in this discussion the original writer of this article is criticized for their "poor knowledge formed by Taiwanese education" but that to me speaks of the ignorance and the condescendence of those in this discussion who obviously has no knowledge or more importantly INTEREST in this subject to make such over arching generalizations.
If anything the Taiwanese are the light weights when it comes to criticism of Japan in this respect. I looked on the internet to see if there was even a bleep about the recent Yasukuni visit and I didn't find anything in Taiwan. Frankly speaking I find it amazing that a Taiwanese person started this thread at all. I would've thought something like this would have originated in mainland China or Korea.
But all that being besides the point, the fact is the assertions rather poorly made by the originator of this article is mostly true. The problem with the article is not that the originator is biased, it's the fact that not enough detail and perspective is given as to WHY THINGS TURNED OUT DIFFERENTLY between Germany and Japan. This I admit may have to do with the "poor Taiwanese education" but that is no reason to give up on the whole subject. Truth is still truth even if it's biased if it indeed is TRUE.
As for the supposed "Japan Bashing" aspect of this article, I would hardly call it bashing someone if someone stepped on your foot and then decided to go around pretending like they never did or that you asked for you foot to be stomped or that the reason why they stepped on your foot justifies stepping on your foot and even morned for those who died gloriously while stepping on your foot and the feet of those around you...
I doubt the protestors of this article would hestiate to argue and write articles about it if Germany was prancing around like England attacked them and started WWII and them crossing the vichy line and marching down the Champs-Élysées and bombing London into shmitherines was to protect Europe from Asian invaders. This is in effect what the right wing in Japan are doing RIGHT NOW after 60 years(!) but then again those of you protesting this wouldn't be all that interested in what people are interested 10,000 miles away. The fact that the article showing Germany in a "good light" is rubbing people from England the wrong way some how seems viased to me too but what do I know right?
BUT ENOUGH WITH THIS LINE OF TALK! It's not constructive and rather a waste of time. We really should return to the issue of the WHY and not the WHAT.
I'm sure an extensive article could be written about it, I may even volunteer to do it, but in short the fact is this. Even during WWII there were elements in Germany itself that did not go along with the Nazi party line just as I'm sure there must've been those in Japan who did not believe completely in what their nation was doing either. (To be completely honest I'm not so sure about Japanese in Japan not believing in their "Great Eastern Empire" rhetoric but I'll be sure to look in to it fully if I end up working on the article.)
Anyway, the difference is that in Germany the ones who took charge after the fall of the Nazis were, well, not Nazis. Unfortunately in Japan the ones put in charge by the U.S. occupation force after the WWII were mostly rehash from the emperial Japanese government, I don't know McArthur was busy I guess, and the rule of their party, the LDP, continues even today. (Guess what party Goizumi is from.)
To me that goes a long way to explaining the why of the current situation not just of the retribution issue but the whole regional tension that continues to persist and will persist if not escalate. Just look at the Yasukuni visit a few days ago. (Ironically that visit was the reason why I stumbled across this artice in the first place.) Is pointing out this historical fact "Japan bashing"? I don't think so and I hope those of you asking this article to be omitted would get a little more interested and see the light.
Again, THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED but instead EXPANDED to better present the unfortunate historical circumstances in which the parties involved find themselves. Truth should never be sacrificed in the name of "unbiased-ness". Sometimes the champions of "unbiased-ness" are the ones trying to sway opinion to bury the truth which is not in their favor.
pixelminer 08/17/2006
It's only pointless, if you like to delete and censor. In fact, post war attitudes and repercussions have not been discussed NEARLY enough for the millions that suffered. Arguments for its deletion is based on ignorance. If anything, the article title should be renamed to reflect its true theme of discussing government, cultural, and social changes to the Axis powers after WWII. One example could be how Volkswagon gave an official apolgy and a compensation fund for its involment of running Nazi slave labor factories. Where as, Mitsubishi corp. would just differ the issue to the government. If you can imagine the Chancellor of Germany driving his entourage to Himmler's grave for the sake of honoring his sacrifice to Germany, I would think, a few PPL would object. Lighten up, this page just needs more stuff.
Hd8888 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The article was redirected as a result of the discussions. The discussions can be read here-> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Responses_of_Germany_and_Japan_to_World_War_II_crimes. --meatclerk 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)