PRC/ROK vs. Japan over Text Books, Part 4815162342
by James Na ~ March 30th, 2006. Filed under: China, China-Korea Relations, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Japan, Japan-Korea Relations. The South Korean government is angry again at Japan for the latest text book blues:
The South Korean government on Thursday sharply denounced Japan for “whitewashing, distorting and glorifying” its militarist past after Japanese officials ordered a series of controversial new changes to high school textbooks.The unusually harsh protest centered on the disclosure this week that Japan’s Education Ministry requested new revisions to 55 textbooks in an effort to avoid student “misunderstandings.” The revised books clearly label disputed territories– including a small island chain under South Korean control but claimed by Japan — as Japanese territory. Also, references to the 1937 Nanjing Massacre were changed to indicate the number of people killed by the Japanese may have been less than the 300,000 victims claimed by China.
On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with what Tokyo did. Tokdo/Takeshima is disputed (though safely in South Korean hands, despite all the hysterics). The victim count for the horrific Rape of Nanjing is probably highly overrated by the Chinese (to be clear, that does not lessen the great evil of the deed).
Nonetheless, this does reflect the continuing lack of serious internal debate about Japan’s war guilt within Japan.
In Germany, there was considerable nation-wide, internal reflection about the German Nazi guilt during the 70s and 80s (mainly brought on my an epoch-making fictional mini-series about two families during WWII on German TV that captured the attention of the then whole of West Germany).
Of course, there were still fringe types that denied German war guilt, but there was broad consensus in West Germany during and after this period of accepting and atoning for Nazi war guilt (the former East Germany is a somewhat different case, as acceptance of war guilt was mandated from above, out of communist “fraternity” with the Soviet Union).
This kind of internal national reflection never took place in Japan. Many Japanese today believe that *they* were the victims of World War II, especially of “undeserved” atomic attacks on civilians. To the extent that there is a national consensus about the war in Japan, it is that “all were victims of war” rather than clear acceptance of Japan’s (and Japanese) specific role in aggression and atrocities.
Japanese leaders, of course, make a big public scene of apologizing (or rather “expressing regret”) for Japan’s role in the war, but internally, socially and educationally, they have never pushed for a real reflection and acceptance of war guilt among the Japanese public.
This regrettable tendency plays straight into the geo-political agenda of both the PRC and the current South Korean administration. Japan ought to assume its rightful position as a serious security player in the world, in Asia certainly. Unfortunately, Japan’s national reluctance to accept the past is creating a barrier for it to play an important role — a welcome one from U.S. perspective — by allowing the hostile governments to whip up negative sentiments in the region.
Until the Japanese public, urged on by its statesmen, engages in a serious internal debate and reflection about the issue, Japan will never be free of the international political shakles of its war guilt, and its legitimate security role in the region will continue to be hampered — also to the detriment of U.S. policy in the region.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Additionally, the Japanese do not associate the bombing of Pearl Harbor with the decision by the U.S. to declare war on Japan. They just see themselves as victims of the U.S. - not the initial aggressors.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:33 am
“Japanese leaders, of course, make a big public scene of apologizing (or rather “expressing regret”) for Japan’s role in the war”
I’ve seen this before; the claim that the ‘apologies’ are not ‘apologies’ at all.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/koizumispeech/2005/08/15danwa.html
The latest apology was 8/15/2005 = … 改めて痛切な反省と心からのお詫びの気持ちを表明する … = お詫び would be the word for apology. Within the restrictions of the Japanese language, it is not possible to do anything more. I know there are many more levels of formality in Korean for example, so perhaps when translated to Korean that doesn’t express much meaning, but it is necessary to understand that the Japanese people are Japanese, speak Japanese, and think Japanese, and within the confines of the Japanese language, that is all that is possible for an apology.
“Nonetheless, this does reflect the continuing lack of serious internal debate about Japan’s war guilt within Japan.”
This is also a common misunderstanding. More discussion, research, and writing about Imperial Japan and WW2 has been done in Japan, by Japanese people, in the Japanese language, then any other country involved.
“This regrettable tendency plays straight into the geo-political agenda of both the PRC and the current South Korean administration.”
The corrupt governments of Korea and China will most certainly never let go this golden opportunity to cover their own backs by creating a false enemy in Japan. Up until last January, it was Top Secret information that in 1964 the Japanese government paid a large amount of settlement money to South Korea for WW2 (with which the South Korean government agreed the issue was closed), it was also Top Secret that the majority of the money was stolen by the government and never saw the people it was rightfully intended for. In China to this day, it is still widely unknown the amount of compensation and aid money that has been flowing into the country from Japan for the last 50 years.
I really do not think Japan is the country that is lacking discussion on the issue.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Oh, they were apologies. I was not claiming they were not. What I was saying, however, is that some Japanese political leaders make a public gesture of making the apologies without seriously leading or pushing the Japanese public to reflect about the issue — it’s more like “I apologized on behalf of my people regardless of what they may think, so let’s move on.”
Yes, that may be true, but that does not equate to the majority of the Japanese public fully accepting the Japanese war guilt. The vast majority of Japanese public, with whom I interacted, seems to hold the view that while Japan did some wrong in WWII, so did the Allies, and that all were victims of the war. Some even hold the Japanese to be “special victims” as recipients of the nuclear attacks. They, while pacifist I must point out, do not hold fully and categorically repentant view of Japan’s role in the Pacific War, as, for example, the Germans hold of the Nazi role in starting the European portion of World War II. Furthermore, the ultra-rightists in Japan, who claim that Japan started the war to liberate East Asia from European colonial powers, still hold much political influence, especially as it relates to education (again, contrary to the situation found in Germany).
I recommend that you see a German film called Das Schreckliche Mädchen (released in the U.S. as “The Nasty Girl”) and then tell me whether there is a similar film from Japan about uncovering the sins of one’s own parents, grandparents and uncles.
It wasn’t a “Top Secret” and most serious foreign policy people knew that as part of the 1965 normalization treaty, Japan gave considerable reparations (cash and loans) somewhat less than $1 billion (some say $800 million; others $600 million or so depending on how the money is counted).
I am very critical of corruption in Korea or anywhere else for that matter, including Japan.
But the claim that the government stole the money, and the implication derived thereby that the officials pocketed the funds intended for victims, is not an accurate description of the situation.
The reparation money was partly used as seed money for South Korean industrialization, particularly for the POSCO project.
Now, one can debate about whether this was the correct use of the reparations, whether to give away the entirety of it to individuals or to use some of it for industry-building, which eventually benefitted the whole country.
But to suggest that the government of the ROK “stole” the reparation funds does not portray an accurate picture of how the funds were disbursed and used.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
PRC/ROK vs. Japan over Text Books, Part 4815162342
PRC/ROK vs. Japan over Text Books, Part 4815162342
PRC/ROK vs. Japan over Text Books, Part 4815162342
[…] The issue of Japanese textbooks is revisited today with new translations from Coming Anarchy and background to the controversy at The Korea Liberator. […]
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: James Lee
I have known many, other wise, well educated and open minded japanese who are extremely ignorant of their government’s actions during World War II. There is clearly a whitewash occurring in Japan concerning the attrocities during the war and they, as a country, need to reflect on their past for their own sake so that they can move on as a country.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Anti-Darin
That Darin claimed Japan paid China unknown amount of money for WWII for 50 years is totally devoid of any truth. China established formal relationship with Japan in 1972(33 years). The aid from Japan was low-interest loan (now stopped). Remember in the last decade, you could borrowed money in Japan for almost no interests.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Dan tdaxp
The Japan-Germany analogy doens’t quite hold water. Japan’s government and actions were similar to the various fascist governments of the time (most famously Italy), as opposed to the revolutionary supremecists (Hitler, Stalin, Mao).
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Darin
“The vast majority of Japanese public, with whom I interacted, seems to hold the view that while Japan did some wrong in WWII, so did the Allies, and that all were victims of the war.”
That is correct, on two levels. Most people think that way, because that is the truth. The opinion held my most Japanese people is that war is wrong. The opinion held by most Korean/Chinese people is that the Japanese people are wrong. Do you mean that not all parties involved were victims of war? Or perhaps you hold the same opinion as another in the blog-world that Japan isn’t a victim of war because it deserved it.
“Some even hold the Japanese to be “special victims” as recipients of the nuclear attacks.”
So you mean to tell me that being the only people in the history of time to be nuked, twice, is not something special? Again, war is wrong, that type of stuff happens in war. The point needs to be simply war is wrong, not Japan/the Japanese are wrong.
“It wasn’t a “Top Secret” and most serious foreign policy people knew that as part of the 1965 normalization treaty, Japan gave considerable reparations (cash and loans) somewhat less than $1 billion (some say $800 million; others $600 million or so depending on how the money is counted).”
It wasn’t top secret, just kept secret from the public? Perhaps my terminology is incorrect. What is the correct term for a piece of information that is kept secret from all except the most absolute top people? “Super-ultra-secret”?
“But the claim that the government stole the money, and the implication derived thereby that the officials pocketed the funds intended for victims, is not an accurate description of the situation.”
I’m pretty sure the president directing a large portion of the money to build a road that he alone was in favor of, building it with construction companies run by his personal friends when the money was supposed to go to those that suffered is stealing. Just as directing the remainder of the money to build up the shipping industry, building it up so well that the only player remaining in the game is another personal friend of the president, representing the sole benefactor in the shipping industry of aid also qualifies as stealing.
“… which eventually benefitted the whole country.”
I find that to be particularly of interest. That comment makes sense to me. The increase of money in the economy (be it in the pockets of only a few people) is definitely going to benefit the whole country once that money starts flowing. It wouldn’t be too much to say that the current South Korea was built with Japanese aid/settlement money. But why is it when some loony with a pen writes it in a comic people get all upset? I guess the truth hurts.
Lastly, I want to point out one thing. I find it interesting that when people talk about WW2 Germany, people refer to the people as Nazi’s, and the country as Nazi Germany. This is a good thing. Germany is not historically any more ‘evil’ of a country then any other country, and the people are not ‘evil’ either. Yet when it comes to Japan, the handling is much different. People make no distinction between Japan and Imperial Japan. Japan, during WW2 and the time before is nothing like modern Japan, and it was nothing like Japan before the time. In the late 1800’s, Japan slowly became a fascist military controlled nation. That was not true before, and it is not true now. Yet people still say “Japan” and the “Japanese” just as that. Why are the German people given protection from being eternal evil by making sure we know the distinction while Japan and the Japanese are given special attention to be sure that they are considered to be an eternal evil?
James-Lee
“they can move on as a country.”
I believe Japan is the one that has moved on and is talking of things now while China and Korea are stuck in a time portal and think they are still at war.
Anti-Darin:
Oh, I have a fan. And his stance is against whatever I am. How mature.
“That Darin claimed Japan paid China unknown amount of money for WWII for 50 years is totally devoid of any truth. China established formal relationship with Japan in 1972(33 years). The aid from Japan was low-interest loan (now stopped). Remember in the last decade, you could borrowed money in Japan for almost no interests.”
Relations have been official for only 33 years with Communist China, but relations with KMT were never severed. But that’s besides the point and will get us involved into the whole China/Taiwan debate. So I’ll change my 50 years to 33 years to as appease you and move on to more pressing matters.
“The aid from Japan was low-interest loan (now stopped)”
Yes, that is correct (minus the part in parenthesis). FYI, that’s what aid is, it’s called low interest, sometimes no interest, loans. These loans are usually excused after a period of time and become free money. However this money is still pouring in to China today. It has not been stopped, but it has been decreasing year by year and India has now replaced China as the leading recipient of Japanese aid. But Japanese aid is still flowing into China. There has been talk of cutting it down even more because (1) China has developed enough that it can wipe it’s own ass, (2) China is a crazed military threat to Japan and the world and it is really not right for Japan to be financing it. China’s response to Japans internal talks of lowering aid has been “go ahead and cut it, we don’t need it.” The only side that has said completely cut has been China.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:12 am
PRC/ROK vs. Japan over Text Books, Part 4815162342
PRC/ROK vs. Japan over Text Books, Part 4815162342
PRC/ROK vs. Japan over Text Books, Part 4815162342
[…] Whether China will immediately permit the ICRC to inspect Sujiatun and investigate these allegations is a real test of its commitment to becoming a member of the civilized world. It would also convict China of rank hypocrisy, thus cheapening some very legit grievances about Japan’s debt to history. […]
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: James J. Na
I don’t think the precise ideological roots of the Imperial Japanese regime is any comfort to the victims of Nanjing or Korean comfort women who were abducted to serve as sex slaves for soldiers at the front.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Dan tdaxp
No more than Italian Fascism’s “precise ideological roots” was any comfort to dead Greeks, Albanians or Ethiopians.
Nor does it make a Nazi-Japan analogy viable.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: James J. Na
I don’t recall that an anti-Fascist coup overthrew the Imperial Japanese government and surrendered to the Allied forces promptly.
Nor is there much evidence of widespread Unit 731-like activities on the part of Italian forces… not that what Fascist Italy did or did not do during WWII excuse what Japan did during the war.
Considering that Japan was Germany only major war ally, particularly outside Europe, I think the analogy holds just fine.
Besides, are you suggesting that Japan’s government and its military forces did NOT commit widespread war crimes?
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Darin
“Considering that Japan was Germany only major war ally, particularly outside Europe, I think the analogy holds just fine.”
America and Russia where allies too, both from different continents, I think you’re analogy is crap. Allies doesn’t mean they are the same, it doesn’t even mean they share the same enemies always. Japan’s alliance with Germany had nothing to do with Germanys actions. It was much more simple. Outside of Korea and China, all the counties that Japan took where territories of countries that Germany took. Japan wanted that land, and it needed Germanys permission to take it from those who had control before. I don’t think Japans alliance with Germany had anything to do with Germanys war, they just wanted to take what they wanted without getting in a war with Germany at the same time.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: James J. Na
Darin:
Let this serve as a warning. You have a right to be rude to us, but NOT on OUR site. I don’t have a problem with arguments, but there is no reason to be rude in doing so.
Further remarks of this sort will result in the comments being deleted.
Now, for the substance of the issue:
Germany committed many significant war crimes during World War II, for which the subsequent (West) German population went though periods of significant national reflection, discussion and debate.
Japan also committed signifcant war crimes during World War II, but a similar German-like period of INTERNAL national reflection has not occurred despite public apologies to outsiders by its leaders.
Although there is some rising, fringe, sympathy to neo-Nazis, especially in eastern Germany, the national consensus today in Germany is that Germans are unequivocally shamed of what their nation did. If you ask most German youths today about World War II and Germany, many of plainly and unequivoclly tell you that what their parents, grandparents and uncles did (or did not do in the face of the Holocaust) was wrong.
If you ask a similar question to the Japanese youth, you often get, not an unequivocal statement condemning the actions of their forefathers, but a wishy-washy statement of “We were victims of the war, too, especially of the American atomic attacks. War is evil.”
Clearly, there are some societal difference in how the Japanese handled their war guilt in comparison to the Germans (and mind you, I am not saying the Japanese were more or less guilty than German of starting World War II or comparing the relative evil-ness of their respective war actions, as such comparisons are often fruitless).
I fail to understand why this comparison rankles you so much.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Dan tdaxp
James,
I agree with your enforcement of civility.
Now to substance:
Well, let’s see - a quick leadership shuffle allowed the government to pretend it was new, and argue for the innocence of the Royal Head of State… Quickly the Constitution was amendment to change the internal composition of power, while conveniently blaming most of the bad stuff on dead guys. Before long the Allies were supporting nominally democrat anti-Communists in the government, and as Communists get antsy around the neighborhood former allies became allies.
That’s Italy’s description. And Japan’s.
Nor is there among Japan’s. There’s evidence of Unit 731-like activities in Unit 731.
That said, Japan treated her prisoners horrifically. Exaggeration clouds the issue, but doesn’t clarify it.
Many Americans, from Admiral Nimitz to future Secretary of Defense McNamara, have stated that their actions would have been “war crimes” if the US had lost. So?
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: hcpen
i absolutely agree with the arguement that Japan has never come to terms as a nation on its aggressive role in WW2. All the japanese people and young people i have met (with the exception of one or two) have been very wishy-washy and never come out forthright in condemning their country’s role in WW2. Most simply love to bring out the hiroshima bombings as an excuse to bolster their claims of japanese victimhood.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: James J. Na
Small problem with your analogy; this “transformation” occurred in Italy before the surrender (after which anti-Fascist Italian troops fought against pro-Fascist and pro-German Italian forces). In Japan, this was completely a product of American occupation.
The last time I checked Unit 731 operated in the AOR of Kantogun (”Kwangtung Army”) and was part of the Imperial Japanese forces.
Again, there is nothing comparable to Italy in World War II.
I am, of course, not making apologies for Italian fascism before and during World War II. Rather, this whole discussion evolved out of my contention that post-WWII Germans have fully internalized Nazi war guilt while post-WWII Japanese have not done so with their war guilt, and instead often portray themselves as “victims, too.”
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: mahathir_fan
“Additionally, the Japanese do not associate the bombing of Pearl Harbor with the decision by the U.S. to declare war on Japan. They just see themselves as victims of the U.S. - not the initial aggressors.”
I have debated this many times over and tired of it. I will say this, just as you claim Japanese o not associate the bombing of Pearl Harbor with the decision by the U.S., I shall say this:
Americans still to this day does not show remorse for their colonization of Hawaii (except for an apology given on the anniversary of the colonization by Clinton - 100 years later) They still thought that the US military base at Pearl Harbour was theirs rightfully. They never questioned what they were doing at Pearl Harbour when Pearl Harbour is located in Hawaii which at the time of the attack does not belong to the United States but was forcefully and illegally colonized by the United States.
Similarly, one could ask, what were the French doing in Indochina, halfway round the globe from their home when Japan attacked it? What were the British doing in Malaya?
If you robbed and old lady of her belongings, then another person robbed those belongings from you, I say, serves you right!
As a Malaysian, I can tell you this. I am damn glad that WWII happened. Without WWII, the British Empire would still be the largest empire and my country would probably still be a British colony.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: James J. Na
Even if we subscribed to your analogy (and I don’t), that ultimately leaves with Japan as the last criminal and the old lady as the victim.
Maybe the thief who was in turn robbed by the second thief was well served, but the fact remains there is still a victim, and the second thief is still a criminal.
Maybe, but likely not. It might have peacefully gone the way of Canada or Australia. Perhaps with a peaceful transition, it might be more prosperous today (even more so than, say, Singapore).
Malaysian, eh? Say, you like ABC Ice Kachang?
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: TChahng
“Americans still to this day does not show remorse for their colonization of Hawaii (except for an apology given on the anniversary of the colonization by Clinton - 100 years later) They still thought that the US military base at Pearl Harbour was theirs rightfully. They never questioned what they were doing at Pearl Harbour when Pearl Harbour is located in Hawaii which at the time of the attack does not belong to the United States but was forcefully and illegally colonized by the United States.”
mahathir_fan strikes out again…
It is obvious you subscribe to falsehoods written about the history of Hawaii and the claims of its “illegal colonization.” Several well researched and factual texts have been written about the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, the preceding events and subsequent annexation by the US, yet you choose to ignore the facts. The Revolution of 1893 was conducted by the citizens of Hawaii to overthrow the corrupt Queen.
If you care to be enlighten on Hawaiian history, please visit these URLs: [http://www.hawaiimatters.com/] and [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1]
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: mahathir_fan
What kind of revisionist hisotry are you trying to preach here. Enlighten yourself with the truth:
http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/history/liliuokalani.html
” In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani sought to empower herself and Hawaiians through a new constitution which she herself had drawn up and now desired to promulgate as the new law of the land. It was Queen Liliuokalani’s right as a sovereign to issue a new constitution through an edict from the throne. A group led by Sanford B. Dole sought to overthrow the institution of the monarchy. The American minister in Hawaii, John L. Stevens, called for troops to take control of Iolani Palace and various other governmental buildings. In 1894, the Queen, was deposed, the monarchy abrogated, and a provisional government was established which later became the Republic of Hawaii.
In 1893, James H. Blount, newly appointed American minister to Hawaii, arrived representing President Grover Cleveland. Blount listened to both sides, annexationists and restorationists, and concluded the Hawaiian people aligned with the Queen. Blount and Cleveland agreed the Queen should be restored. Blount’s final report implicated the American minister Stevens in the illegal overthrow of Liliuokalani. Albert S. Willis, Cleveland’s next American minister offered the crown back to the Queen on the condition she pardon and grant general amnesty to those who had dethroned her. She initially refused but soon she changed her mind and offered clemency. This delay compromised her political position and President Cleveland had released the entire issue of the Hawaiian revolution to Congress for debate. The annexationists promptly lobbied Congress against restoration of the monarchy. On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaii with Sanford B. Dole as president was proclaimed. It was recognized immediately by the United States government.”
Btw, do you know some people claim that Imperial Japan had no colonization plans for China because after the Japanese took over, they handed sovereignty of China back to the Chinese with Wang Jing Wei as President and Manchuria to Emperor Puyi?
See:http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Cochinchina_State
I’m sending the link to you since you seem like one interested in revisionist history.
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: TChahng
mahathir_fan you are actually refering to THE revisionist version of the events surrounding the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893. As usual… mahatir_fan got whiffed again.