Talk:Japanese war crimes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Vfd debate

For the vfd debate related to this article see Talk:List of Japanese War Atrocities/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by several participants in the VfD debate, this article does not conform to the NPOV policy, and I'm adding the appropriate notification. Problems go beyond the hopelessly NPOV title -- for example, there is no reasonable definition of "atrocity" that includes the alleged theft of art objects. JamesMLane 17:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i just took away the badge? whats the big deal?

Atrocities

I have never known the followings can be called 'Atrocities'.

Anti-Government-movement suppression /Stolen Artifacts /Destruction of Royal Palace/Opium policy/

-Poo-T 16 Nov 2004

And do British or Chinese say Opium War was an atrocity? If Japanese did it, it probably is! :) Revth 03:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have Cleaned up the style / deleted some links. At least, 'Atrocities' in this page require the following standards, 'More than one human was killed.' 'Independent event'. Poo-T 02:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should the Death Railway be added to this list (aka The Bridge on the River Kwai)? "About a hundred thousand conscripted Asian labourers and 16,000 Allied prisoners of war died on the project." [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 12:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moment of silence

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20041212a2.htm

Let's have a moment of silence for Mrs. Cruz for the loss of her brother and rape of her mother.

No, even better: Let's have a minute of silence for everyone who died in WW II. I mean a minute for each person. That's 121 years.

Editing the Article

I think that the article should be changed to "Japanese War Crimes". Also, I think comparisons need to be made between Japan and Germany. Also, the differing point of view should be included to make it impartial. While I believe Japan committed war crimes(not just in China and Korea, but throughout Asia as far south as the Dutch East Indies), the Japanese government and many Japanese citizens don't think Japan committed war crimes. So in addition to the sections there now, I think a section needs to be brought up on japanese arguments against war crimes, from people such as Yuko Tojo. 67.181.98.200 03:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

War crimes ARE atrocities. Check your Geneva Conventions facts. SirCollin

An alternative

This article, as it currently stands, is poorly organized, incomplete, and highly POV (both in its title and presentation). I would like to suggest one way to deal with those problems.

For any events that were procecuted by a post-war tribunal such as either the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal or the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (aka Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal) (I think that there was also a separate Russian tribunal), create a Japanese section in the following article: List of war crimes. For any events that would qualify as Genocide, there is already a list with a Japanese category (see Genocides in history#Japanese Genocide during WWII). There is also a List of massacres (already containing Japanese events) which should probably include those events that don't qualify as genocide.

Then for all the different wars that the Japanese have been involved in (World War II, Russo-Japanese War, Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), etc.) there should be lists that would cover "List of Japanese involvement in WWII", "List of incidents in the Russo-Japanese War" ,etc. These lists can then be either categorized, or annotated (or both).

After all of those are created, then this particular list is redundant and no longer necessary. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 16:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

On wikipedia even articles like creationism are been made neutral. Artilce accuses Japan of things. This simply conflicts with NPOV. If you dont like the tag, work on the article. I will personaly come and check your work. I can help mediate this if you like. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Message to people holding Massacre view: Providing the views of "denielits" is along with NPOV policy. Article, if written neutral should voice both sides views. An average reader will dispute factual acuracy when "Japanese atrocities" is a topic. If you dont want that you want to write it neutral. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Message to people opposing Massacre view: You should allow verifiable facts to be presented. While it is perfectly normal for you to dispute all of this, NPOV suggests your oponnents voices also need to be heard. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the disputed template. You must follow wikipedia policiy. This is not a forum. I can guide you with NPOV process. You dont want the tag. If you insist on removeing the tag, you will eventualy get the topic locked. You dont want that either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Below is a suggestion of hierarchy. Germany has a the holocaust in the main page of Germany and redirects it to Germany's genocide. We can have a direct linkage by mentioning Japan War Crimes and Japanese Expansionism in Japan history page which will both link up to Japanese Expansionism

Japan 
  Japan War Crimes - just a linkage  
  Japanese Expansionism 
      Russo-Japanese War
      Occupation of Korea
      Occupation of Taiwan
      Occupation of Sakhalin
      Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
      Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)
      Japan War Crimes  
          List of Japanese War Atrocities
              Nanjing Massacre
              March 1st Movement
              Sook Ching Massacre
              Last Empress of Korea
              Bataan Death March
              Manila Massacre
              Unit 731
              Unit 516
              Unit 100
              Death Railway
          Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal
          International Military Tribunal for the Far East
          Japanese arguments against war crimes - new section

Japanese Expansionism currently redirects to Empire of Japan. Empire of Japan can be directly linked from Japan. Empire of Japan can be a stand alone section outside of Japanese Expansionism

Japanese genocide during WWII should be the text of Japan War Crimes and remove Japanese genocide during WWII as a separate section.

Asian Holocaust was re-directing to Manila Massacre, which is not really appropriate. I have now started a separate Asian Holocaust page. Perhaps this would be a better name than Japanese War Crimes? Grant65 (Talk) 05:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have also re-directed Chinese Holocaust to Asian Holocaust, as it was re-directing to Nanjing massacre.Grant65 (Talk) 05:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we dont rename this. The problem is a culture clash, not a POV clash. The facts are that at the time, the japanese didnt consider they way they treated people constituted an atrocity, whereas westerners did. The roots of THAT derive from the fact that Japanese culture considers that soldiers who do not die in battle, but allow thenselves to be captured are no longer human.

So we need to write an explanation of the culture clash which lead to those events that the west consider atrocities, and then explain that lots of japanese are still in denial about this. Some POW camp commanders on the Burma Railway, for example, deny the treatment was harse, but blame the deaths on poor food, weak prisoners, and disease, but not in any way the japanese fault. Just this week the Chinese (who were occupied in Machuria from 1933 - 1945), told the Japs that Japan and China cannot have normal diplomatic relations until they stop rewriting the past, a refernce to the fact that Japanese school history books barely mention anything about jap war atrocities.

After all, its not the fact that these events occurred (thats a fact), its who comitted them and why, and the culture clash that was involved.

I think thats how you goet a NPOV on this.

So if no one objects i'll write a para to start the ball rolling....

193.131.115.253 12:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is atrocious (pardon the pun)

"Thus, even to this day, the Japanese refuse to apologise for the treatment of the peoples concerned, refuse to acknowledge that the treatment was atrocious, refuse to accept guilt, and even gloss over or fail to mention it in Japanese school history books."

This entire sentence is saturated with POV. It should probably be deleted.

Ok ive rewritten it....the point here is that the events did occur, they are fact, the dispute , as Ive tried to explain in the article, is the vastly differing culture POV's of the status of a POW. So in that context, the above stement is fair comment, as the reason why they wont apologise to any extent is given in the previous two paras. The article doesnt not imply whether the refusal to apologise is good or bad, but outlines why it is so.

The opening paragraph doesnt call them atrocities, as that is disputed, but they are human rights issues, which is what it calls them.

That is a NPOV, I dont see how you can say it isnt. At least I made an attempt to NPOV it by producing some explanatory text for the article list, rather than just standing on the sidelines criticizing............

Denial edit?

I'm reverting the previous 2 edits as they seem to be more of a denial of the nanjing massacre then adding anything to the dicussion.. if anyone can come up with sources i'd be glad to put them back in. --Sasquatch 09:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Title

I think the title should be changed as it is no longer really a "list" and I think "war crimes" is more precise than "atrocities". How about Japanese war crimes, 1910-45 or something similar? Grant65 (Talk) 19:11, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

POV

On wikipedia even articles like creationism are been made neutral. Artilce accuses Japan of things. This simply conflicts with NPOV. If you dont like the tag, work on the article. I will personaly come and check your work. I can help mediate this if you like. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Message to people holding atrocity view: Providing the views of "denielits" is along with NPOV policy. Article, if written neutral should voice both sides views. An average reader will dispute factual acuracy when "Japanese atrocities" is a topic. If you dont want that you want to write it neutral. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Message to people opposing atrocity view: You should allow verifiable facts to be presented. While it is perfectly normal for you to dispute all of this, NPOV suggests your oponnents voices also need to be heard. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the disputed template. You must follow wikipedia policiy. This is not a forum. I can guide you with NPOV process. You dont want the tag. If you insist on removeing the tag, you will eventualy get the topic locked. You dont want that either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've started by removing the comment about the acts being considered "barbaric" as that seems very POV to me, if you have any more suggestions on what seems POV or sources that support the view that some of these acts have been overly exaggerated, please show and edit the article. --Sasquatch 00:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The statement was to the effect that ' the westerners considered such acts barbaric' . It is NOT stating as a fact they were barbaric , it is stating that this was the view of the Western world, and therfore explains why the Western world considers these to be human rights abuses. By removing this word you remove one of the background reasons for the controversy, you remove the allied POV, and since this is an article essentially about culture clash and POV, it is essential that it is included. The reason the japanese treated the people as such is given, and so the western attitude to it should also be given, therby giving BOTH sides of the conflict. I intend to revert the changes from the last two edits, as the removal biasses and neuters the article and removes much of the background attitude to the history, which is essential to understanding it.

Alright, lets make a deal, if you find a western historian or any type of historiography that refers to this act as "barbaric" or to that effect, you can just simply quote that in the article. This sounds reasonable to me as just putting it in rather sounds like an opinion of a person rather than something conjectured from fact. Again, it just seems somewhat more provocative than an encyclopedia should be and again, we're trying to avoid as much POV as possible. This culture clash can be stated just as well without the use of the word "barbaric". I don't plan to start a revert war to if you would just find a source and then its perfectly fine. Something like This has led many in the western world, such as (insert name), to view these acts as (quote text). Sound good to you? --Sasquatch 00:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

AH, now the problem is that to do all the research, and photocopy and scan the newspapers and books that use that word would take a long time, and you know it, and this technique of ' show me an example ' is the cop out used when soemone like you objects to something and cant actually find a valid reason to exclude it.

The fact is my father used the word 'barbaric' ,and he was there, so an EYE WITNESS opinion , then, rather than an armchair historians opinion, is worth more, dont you think? BTW, were even born at the time? The correct desription of the treatment of prisoners is 'barbaric', look it up in the dictionary. If anyone removes the word, i will reinsert it and there will be a revert war. OK ?

Ok ive rewritten it AGAIN :P Anyone object THIS time ? We are not judging the japanese here, but the opinions of the Japanes eacts are compatible with the mojority of the Western Worlds POV, and as is frquently shouted about round here, the mainstream thinking is an acceptable POV. The use of the word 'barbaric' IS appropriate, if you read newspapers and reports of these events that is the word that was used. Lets not confuse NPOV with being scared of offending someone with the truth. The truth is that these were barbaric atrocities, no more no less, and a product of a 25 year culture of brutality and fear. Lincolnshire Poacher 18:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can live with this version, can we remove the NPOV sticker now then? Lincolnshire Poacher

The article is very much improved from its condition when I put the NPOV tag on, but there is still work to be done. For example, the paragraph about how kind and noble all we Westerners are, by comparison to the vile Japanese, is clearly POV, and would come as a surprise to many victims of Western misconduct. The article mentions Nazi atrocities. Just with regard to my own country's conduct, one might add slavery, the treatment of native Americans, My Lai, and several other counterexamples to the naive picture painted in that paragraph. (In an article about Japan, such self-righteousness is particularly inappropriate. Some people consider the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be on a level with or much worse than the Japanese actions attacked in this article.)

I'd say that, in general, the article is permeated with POV. One major flaw is the presentation of serious charges with weasel wording and no substantiation -- examples include "Japanese popular culture is said to have become increasingly racist" and "There is also perceived to be a widespread reluctance in Japan to discuss such events". We read that "Japanese soldiers were often encouraged to go on rampages" -- encouraged by whom, and what's the support for this charge? The phrase "apologists for Japanese imperialism" is another blatant violation, and the use of loaded words like "murder" and "sex slaves" is a problem.

The easiest way to deal with such issues is to present opinions properly attributed to their proponents, each backed up with citation. I wouldn't put the NPOV tag on just because the condemnatory opinons were more thoroughly documented than the corresponding defensive opinions. In that circumstance, the solution is simply for people who want to redress the balance to accomplish that goal by doing some research and providing more factual information about the aspects of the subject that need additional development. What makes the NPOV violation is when opinions are presented as fact rather than attributed, and when contrary opinions are belittled. The article suffers from both these problems. JamesMLane 12:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James, my latest edit attempts to address some of your concerns. However what you say above causes concern to me.

"Naive?" So we should always expect war crimes as normal practice? The reason why the Nazi crimes are mentioned is that they were happening at the same time. For some reason, Japan seems to have done better at PR than Germany. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, except to say that I totally disagree that they were comparable to the crimes committed by Japanese forces.

"Weasel words"? Would it be better if the allegations were made bluntly? There are enough facts to support such an approach, believe me. Then you complain about words like "murder" and "sex slaves"! Which are pretty hard to avoid if and when you actually read accounts of happened. They are depressing in their volume and repetitiveness, for anyone of a humane disposition.

As for citations, what do you think the "External Links" and "References" sections are there for? There is such a mountain of evidence out there, including government and academic websites, it is hard to know where to begin. If you have the best intersets of Wikipedia and the article at heart, feel free to add specific citations in the text itself. Or at the very least, why don't you do some editing/re-writing yourself, instead of just criticisiing the article from here? Grant65 (Talk) 03:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and I do think that the article has improved. Let me address some of your specific points.

"Naive" -- what I meant was that the assessment of Western conduct was naive. The text strongly implied that nothing comparable could ever happen in Western societies, partly because many Westerners are Christian. That's a naive view of the conduct of non-Japanese powers in general and of the impact of Christianity in particular. The truth is much more mixed, with other powers sometimes behaving better and Christianity sometimes ameliorating the ferocity of warfare -- but sometimes not. I think the removal of the reference to Christianity is an improvement, as is the toning down of the naivete, but the passage still seems overly exculpatory of Western war crimes. People who want to condemn specific Japanese actions are naturally subject to the temptation to make those actions seem unprecedented; the Japanese look worse by comparison if you whitewash other nations' crimes. As encyclopedia writers, we should resist this temptation. I don't mean to imply that the Trail of Tears is a justification for Japanese mistreatment of U.S. prisoners of war, but our outrage at Japanese crimes is no justification for pretending that the Trail of Tears never happened, just because we want to make Japanese crimes seem uniquely horrible.

"Weasel words" -- The passages I criticized are similar or even identical to the examples of improper writing given in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. The remedy is not to make the allegations "bluntly", if by that you mean asserting someone's preferred opinions as facts. Instead, the remedy is to attribute the opinions. (See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms#Improving weasel terms, where one example given of improper weaselling is the sentence "Some people have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate." The improvement is to substitute this wording: "Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush. In it, he asked 'George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'.")

Loaded terms -- You say that such terms "are pretty hard to avoid if and when you actually read accounts of happened." If the undisputed facts make clear the moral judgment that anyone of a humane disposition would reach, then we don't need to reach that conclusion for them. We can just present the facts, confident that the reader will say, "That's outrageous!" If you really feel a need to point out that some horrible act is indeed horrible, you can again follow the path of reporting an attributed opinion.

Citations -- You say that, in view of the "a mountain of evidence out there, . . . it is hard to know where to begin." That's precisely the problem. The article presents a barrage of charges against Japan and then a long collection of links and references. What's the reader supposed to do? Accept all the charges at face value, or go slogging through all the cited materials to find the particular supporting passages? We need to give more precise information. Some readers might be interested in learning more about one or two particular incidents but not the whole collection. Some readers might want to know more about the basis for a particular allegation. For example, what was this historian's nationality or other possible bias? Did s/he write before or after the declassification of the thus-and-such documents from government files? The reference to the Seagraves' book and the providing of a specific link tied to a particular point is a step forward, but the rest of the article needs similar attention.

Why don't I edit -- I haven't read any of the listed sources. Yes, I could conceivably abandon all other Wikipedia projects that I care about, and spend the next few weeks going through all those sources and plugging in the citations. If you want to discount everything I say because I won't do that, well, you're entitled to your opinion. Wikipedia policy is to the contrary, however. Wikipedia policy is to cite your sources. This article is a good example of when simply listing references isn't enough:

If the topic has few references and the material is truly uncontroversial, in-text citations are perhaps less important. However, in-text references can be very useful if there is a long list of references and it is not clear which one the reader should consult for more information on a specific topic. In-text citations can also be extremely useful if there is doubt or disagreement on some point; the text can claim that a report stated something, and then you can reference that report. In particular, articles that involve strong opposing viewpoints may need to have many in-text citations to justify many of their statements. (from Wikipedia:Cite sources#Citations in the text and at the end; see also Wikipedia:Verifiability)

I'm not being hypocritical here. I invite your attention to an article where I have read a lot of the sources and have helped edit the article accordingly: George W. Bush. In that article on a controversial subject, we have more than two dozen in-text links to references that support specific statements. This article, by contrast, had zero, and now has one (for the Seagraves). If you, or someone else, added a particular statement to the article, on the basis that it appeared in one of the referenced books, then the person who read it there should take a little extra trouble and tell the reader where it came from. I could edit the article by removing all the statements that don't have that kind of support and insisting that they not be restored unless properly attributed. If I did that, I'd remove the NPOV tag, but I don't think that's the best path to improving the article. I prefer to leave in place the work that other editors have already done, but to leave in the NPOV tag until the criticisms are properly attributed. JamesMLane 05:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Grant here. Loaded? I don't think so. They are what they are. "Murder" and "sex slavery" are no more loaded than the word "red" or "green." Pardon the sarcasm but perhaps we should replace murder with "The ending of life, aka, that which begins when birth occurs, -which is then cut short by another party." I found a great article once on the use of "comfort women" over "sex slavery" as being nothing more than warped political correctedness, but I can't find it unfortunately. I will say, however, that "comfort women" seems no different than the attempts to flower "civilian casualties" with "collateral damage." Moogleii 08:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I though the policy of wikipedia is to report the truth? Are you doubting the truth of anything in this article? Are you doubting that the word 'barbaric' has been used frequently in the last 50 years to describe the actionbs of the japanese? As the man said, there is a mountain of evidenc and eye witness testimony to support it. What you are trying to do is supress a POV simply because there is no-one to put an opposite POV. Just because there is no one out there willing to try and defend the POV in this encyclopedia, then why should those trying to record the facts be censored from doing so. If you are not careful, your supposedly NPOV stance simply becomes a Pro-Jap stance by virtue of its censorship of the other side. What happened happened, and peoples opinions on this are fact. As has been frequently stated on Wikipedia, just because YOU dont like an opinion is not a valid reason to supress it. I think your position is untenable and biassed in itself.

193.131.115.253

Your attack on me and my motives seems to assume that I think the criticisms of Japan should be removed, or should be removed until the opposing POV is also added. I didn't say that. I said that the specific charges made should be attributed to their sources. If a reader comes along who does doubt the truth of something in this article, that reader should be able to determine the basis for the statement. If the statement in the article is true, giving the source will help persuade skeptical readers that it's true. If the statement is false, or (more likely) misleading, or whatever, giving the sources makes it easier for other editors to reword and improve the article.

I am absolutely against suppressing opinions. You appear not to have read my comment. The point is that we neither suppress opinions nor endorse them. If many people have described something as "barbaric", we don't say, "This is barbaric." We say, "Many people have described this as 'barbaric'." Then, ideally, we give a citation. (Of course, being more specific about who's expressed this opinion would be even better.)

The citation of sources, and drawing the distinction between reporting an opinion and endorsing it, are especially important on topics likely to excite controversy. That's one reason I used George W. Bush as an example. Incidentally, if your chief concern is to convey information to readers who come to this article with little or no prior knowledge of the subject, then changing it along the lines I suggested would make it a more effective indictment of Japanese conduct, not a whitewash. JamesMLane 21:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haven't checked into this page for a while but I'm satisfied with the way the word barbaric is treated now =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Cite authoritative sources that the following sentence is widely accepted.

Such views are widely regarded as being offensive and as representing historical revisionism.

--Tkh 09:56, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why? The requests for references for the most modest statements to be referenced are bizarre and farcical. For example, the source of much of the material I have added is...other Wikipedia articles. Perhaps large numbers of Wikipedia contributors are Japanophobes. But I doubt it. Perhaps "npov" warnings should be added to Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), Kempeitai, Rape of Nanjing, Burma Railway, Japanese nationalism, comfort women, Sook Ching Massacre, Manila Massacre, Unit 731, Unit 516, Unit 100, Death Railway, Comfort Women and Sandakan Death Marches, et c., et c. Be my guest. Grant65 (Talk) 13:00, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that citing external sources would make the article closer to NPOV? If you gather information from other articles to state the above sentence, citations would prove the credibility of those article as well and everyone would appreciate you. Just putting POV on articles does not improve quality. Read Wikipedia:Cite_sources. --Tkh 02:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

Hmib,

I moved the following sentences from the main article to avoid a revert war:

In addition to that, a recent UN investigator has found racism in Japan to be "deep and profound", and that the government "does not recognise the depth of the problem."[1] This certainly adds to the stereotype (at least among victims) of the unrepentant Japanese.

The last sentence is your opinion based on your POV. If it is a fact, cite a source to back it up.

No it's not an opinion. It's a fact based on logical deduction. The source has already been provided. -Hmib 18:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Now you said that. Can you explain every step of your logical deduction so that everyone can follow? --Tkh 19:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

In the edit summary, you said "it contributes negatively to the image of japanese." I think this is NPOV, but it is not equivalent to "this certainly adds to the stereotype (at least among victims) of the unrepentant Japanese." How can you deduce the use of the word unrepentant from the source you provided? --Tkh 19:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It contributes negatively to the image of Japanese by perpertrating the image of the unrepentant Japanese. First of all, the finding does not accuse Japanese of being unrepentant. However it is a fact that there is a stereotype of the unrepentant Japanese. It is known that Japanese racism is a contributing factor to its past agressions and by extensive its war crimes. Thus a finding that Japanese have not abandoned their racism implies by association that they still are not repentant about their past war crimes. -Hmib 21:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Now you've brought up a new premise. If "it is known that Japanese racism is a contributing factor to its past agressions and by extensive its war crimes" is a fact, cite an authoritative source since you said that it is known. Suppose it is a fact, is it a major contributing factor? If it's not, you can't use it as a premise of your deduction because then you would generalize your reasoning to reach the conclusion you wrote. --Tkh 22:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vietnamese famine of 1945

About 2 million civilians in northern Vietnam died during the Vietnamese Famine of 1945 caused by Japanese troops hoarding food from the farmers. I think it should be included in this article. DHN 22:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

A Young Korean's Perspective on This Topic. (and some other relevant topics)

I am still young and have much to learn about the world, I believe that I have enough knowledge regarding this topic so that I can express my opinion about it.

Korea now is the way it is largely due to the Japanese colonisation of Korea from 1910 (or technically even before that) to 1945 August 15. After the occupation, the US and USSR "protected" the Korean peninsula, when all they have done is to divide the nations so that they could demonstrate their power. The Korean War erupted on 1950 June 25 and something like this would not have occurred to Korea if the Japan did not colonise Korea. The whole Korean peninsula was under a monarchy (Joseon) and I am unaware of any possibilities of Korea splitting in two all by itself if the monarchy continued without Japan. The Korean War was larger than World War II, not in the number of people involved or killed, but in the number of countries that were involved.

Currently, as a member of G8, Japan is hoping to get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, yet Japan apologised about its war crimes with its tongue in the cheek. The best form of apology for me would be education of people about the atrocities. Why do we know so much about the Jews when most non-Asian people I talk to in North America are surprised (and some contradicted with their own research) when they hear about the Asians during the World Wars. 6 million Jews dead in concentration camps is indeed very tragic and should never occur again. However, I feel that the Jews are overprotected in that when for people in Middle East face drought and starvation, the Jews in Israel are one of the top 10 consumers of ice cream. The Jews have gotten to the stage that they can now deny the rights of people (Palestinians) as they were denied during World War II. Asians, in sharp contrast, are still subject to the Western negligence. I want Hollywood to make movies about the Japanese war crimes as it is making movies about the German war crimes (Schindler's List, the Pianist, Life is Beautiful, and the list just goes on and on).

I agree with the Singaporean person that the Western bias is imposing a double standard on history. (I would not go as far as not to believe a word of history, nonetheless).

Japan's war crime does not end with the fact that they killed some 20 million Chinese, 9 million Koreans, 2 million Taiwanese and millions from other ethnicities; the hatred towards Japan is after all, not so illogical. Japan is claiming lands (mostly islands) that were not in possession of Japan before the colonisation. The main reason is the abundant fish supply in many of those conflicted areas.

Case Study I: Dok-do (or in Japanese Takeshima or in International sense, Liamcourt Rocks). Dok-do is uninhabitable island (too small? and it was volcanic). Around the island is the sea called the Sea of Japan, when all along before the colonisation was called the Sea of Corea. Now it is called East Sea in Korea and Sea of Japan throughout the world. (Western bias???) Anyways. Dok-do has been a territory of Korea and documents regarding the ownership goes back at least a thousand years (during the times of Shin-la). Japan is now taking Dok-do along with all the memories of the colonialised past of Korea. Dok-do is now commonly called Liancourt Rocks by many maps and soon, it may be called Takeshima, when all the time the Korean Coast Guard has been guarding the island for so long. I want people to understand that we are not angry at Japan only because of the unapologised (well, apologised, but looking at the attitude of Japanese government and people on the topic, the apologies were done only for political reasons) past war crimes, but also current events like Dok-do.

I can still observe Japan's militarism. Japan is not supposed to have any kind of armed forces except the ones necessary to keep itself from being overtaken by another country. Nonetheless, it spends 70+ million dollars on its military. I don't think that Japan should spend that much money at all!!! South Korea has to keep itself from very real threats from North Korea and thus everyone is conscripted (including myself 3~4 years from now) and spends something like 20~30 million dollars on military. South Korea's military has its purpose not only in defense, but also in offense. In contrast, Japan's military should only focus on defense, and thus should not spend so much money on its military! The US should be more responsible regarding the constitution drawn after the WW II.

The development of Asian nations is probably staggering because of the fact that the nations are not so willing to cooperate. European nations cooperate so much so that the citizens in Europe do not care much about the origins. In Asia, ethnicism (rather than racism) is strong and that is hampering the development. As a matter of fact, the Korean president Park Jung-Hee had treaties with Japan regarding economy and that was one of the factors that drove South Korean economy. Yes, without Japan, Korean economy would not be in the position it is right now. I admit that 100%. However, if political ties to countries are not strong, how can the economical ties be?

Someday, I hope for a Union of Asian Nations or something like that. Making Asia develop means over 50% of the world population will benefit from the development directly.

War crimes of Japan is one of the biggest factors that needs a solution, and to me, the solution is to have Japan educate people about their past wrongs. (At least educate their own people, for God's sakes! Canada is educating people about Beothuks, the world about Jews, and so on. Why not Japan?) Solve that, and the future of Asia will be bright.

---

Encyclopedia issue

First of all, I am a Japanese person. That means according to many wikipedias, I am not qualified to edit certain articles like this one. Many people think that I am not knowledgable or educated about Japanese war crimes. I am not here to debate if Japanese people committed a war crime. Personally, I think they did like Americans, but my personal opinion is besides the point. The problem of this article is most of materials here are redundant. Before I edit, there are mainly three parts:

1. Japanese people killed people in Asia, just like others.
2. Some people say their acts are babaric just like we say 9/11, Holocaust and Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
3. The value system or the belief system in Japanese people.

As for 1, it is redundant; World War II and related articles should address who killed how many people. As for 2, we should be foscusing on who is saying this and not what they are saying. Finally, 3 is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a place to analyze why Japanese people committed war crimes.

I am Japanese, so you would never realize but I am touched by the above post. I know people expect me to defend my nation and my people. But that is not my mission here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I believe there is a way, a right way, to represent this kind of issues. -- Taku 21:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's OK to copy material from this page to others, but you appear to have removed most of the article. Or is it in a new article somewhere? In any case I am going to revert. Grant65 (Talk) 11:52, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I was planning to move materials, but noticed that most of the stuff is already elsewhere. Also we cannot have sentences like "For example, about two million civilians in Indonesia, a major rice-growing nation, are said to have died from famine in 1944-45 alone." This is not a way to report a crime. Who claimed the incident? Who found this to be a crime? And such. In any case I am going to revert again. -- Taku 21:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to elucidate my position further. The problem of the old article is that it simply lists incidents. We can adjust tones of listing, but I don't think that is the issue at hand. The topic that this article should be addressing is not what Japanese people did during the war but how each of us see what they did. Again, the above post by a Korean person is a perfect example. His is clearly a point of view, and we need to state those points of views very very clearly. I am not against the pictorial accounts of how Japanese appear babaric. We need those stuff. Listing incidents, as said above, is redundant. As to the editing process, I am afraid I should appear rude but I am unable to fix the article. So I wanted to mean I leave this to others. I believe in wikipedia, when thete is problematic text, and you are not sure how to fix it, you should erase it to see how others can state that differently.

Even I might suggest to use the above post by a Korean as a basis for a completely rewritten article. His is exactly what I often hear. I, although, am not certain how to turn it into an encyclopedia article. -- Taku 21:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Taku, if you read the above discussion you will notice that there is no general dispute about the text, virtually all of the material is in other Wikipedia articles and/or is readily available on the internet; the dispute is about references. That is not a reason to delete something.

Will you leave the text if I say that I am confident of providing refences to 99% of it, and will do so in the near future?

If you think that a particular passage of an article is incorrect, you should query that particular passage here, and do some research yourself before deleting it. For example, the claim about Indonesia was a relatively moderate one. I have now broadened the statement to include S. E. Asia in general. There was already a link in the article to the Vietnamese Famine of 1945. Imperial states are usually held responsible for such events when they happen to peoples under their control. Nazi Germany is held responsible for the Dutch famine of 1944. Britain is held responsible for the many famines in India between the 1850s and 1940s, including the Bengal famine of 1943 (in which Japanese forces also clearly played a part).Grant65 (Talk) 02:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am not disputing the accuracy. This is why I am not referring to a particular passage or claim. I deleted the text not because it is false. I don't want to make a personal attack but I think you are missing my point above. Perhaps I am not doing a good job of explaning myself. My point is that we don't have an article called American war crimes, (I don't think we should), and this article should tell elucidate why this is the case. I will try to articulate my position if I have more time. -- Taku 00:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that so many people have commented on this page shows that there is strong interest in the subject. There is an article called Italian war crimes. And I don't see why there shouldn't be a U.S. war crimes article. (Cubans, Paraguayans, Mexicans, etc also claim to be "Americans"). There is certainly plenty of material for such an article. Or perhaps Allied war crimes of World War II. If your problem is with the word "Japanese", then perhaps I would agree. Perhaps War crimes of the Empire of Japan would be a better title? Grant65 (Talk) 12:07, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

My problem is not with the title. I am not here to debate whether Japanese military personnel commited a crime or not. And, my point is in short that we should focus on who is saying what. This article lacks the part of who. This is why I used the example of American war crimes. Put in another way, the article should be about particular points of view in China and Korea, and the article talks as if the topic is not a POV--very very bad way of writing an encyclopedia article. Actually, this is what I said already. Does the above post (ones on May 20 and before) really not make sense? Since you are not responding, I still cannot see how you have problems with them. Anyway, I feel sorry that I keep confusing you, so if I can, tomorrow I will try to rewrite the article to make my point. That can help make clear when we have to delete what is true. -- Taku 12:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Great, but please don't make any big deletions. I have said I will work to reference as much of the article as possible. I must admit I've been caught up in less important things. I also think that you (Taku) can also add depth and balance to the article by explaining more of the Japanese perspective on these matters, especially the differences in culture involved from one country to another, something in which I lack expertise or experience. Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

From my edit, it should be clear that I am not an expert on this at all. But I hope that edit shed light on what I have been trying to say. -- Taku 08:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Many of the issues in that material are relevant. However this person's opinions are simply not encyclopedia material at the moment — I don't know of any Wikipedia article where such material would be acceptable in its present form. I'm removing it until it is edited into a proper form.

It's not the way wikipedia works. We don't have to wait until the text becomes proper; we keep editing a poorly written article. Also, I suggested this before, and since no one opposed I just went ahead. -- Taku 12:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, as the article says, the Tokyo Trials were only one small part of the story of the trials of Imperial personnel, which lasted for five years and took place in several countries, under judges from several countries.Grant65 (Talk) 12:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I have started editing the material you posted, and am trying to work it into an encyclopedic style, but it's a very big job.Grant65 (Talk) 12:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to my edit; I mean if it is not here, how can we edit it collectively? Also, I didn't mean to emphasize Tokyo Trial; it is just only what I know. It is just that I cannot write what I don't know, so I wrote what I can do. I think it is important to start in this way (the way the intro of my edit). In Japan, Japanese war crimes mean crimes found in Tokyo Trial. I don't think it is right, but it is a view, and as I am repeatedly saying the article should be very explicit about views. I have to write POVs in NPOV; leaving POVs is POV. Or at least that is what I am trying to say. -- Taku 13:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

The views of one person are not encyclopedia material. Regardless of how it is introduced, it is totally at odds with the style and spirit of Wikipedia. I am happy to edit it here, but please take it off the article page until it is in a proper format. Grant65 (Talk) 13:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

To my experience, it is not just one person's view. It is really typical one. But I agree that it is not encyclopedic at all, and am willing to work on. We have to discuss particular views, and I thought, as I proposed long time ago, that it may be useful to start from it. In any case other people feel uncomfortable I will remove it. (Since when I proposed it no one opposed, I was forced to assume there would be no opposition. How wrong I was)

Tabu, I know very little about this subject, but the form of your addition doesn't fit our style. The way to go is to get the benefit of your proposed content but to fit it into the rest of the article.

You ask how we can edit it collectively if it's not here. Material like that can be on this talk page, or you can set it up as a subpage of your user page. You have a lot of freedom to put things on your user page. You can invite people to edit it there and see if people are willing to do some work on it. You could call it something like User:TakuyaMurata/Japanese war crimes (draft), or give it a different title after your name if you prefer. You can click on that red link I've created and put proposed material in there to start the new subpage.

The problem, though, is that other editors tend to stick to the talk page and not go to a subpage, even if the user invites them. Another idea would be not to try to do everything at once, but to pick a small part of your larger edit and post it here, with an explanation of why it would be an improvement, and ask for comments. It will take longer, of course. In my experience, though, changing a little bit at one time is often the fastest way to improve an article. JamesMLane 17:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I know this edit was unconventional; it is not due to my ignorace (I am a long-time contributor), and but due to my inability to have to start a new revision. What was going on is that I was trying to explain my point to Grant65, but I have had difficulty making it clear. I vowed to edit it. Anyhow, I think your advice, piece by piece, is good; let's start a Japanese view. I think that new section is fairly short and should be managable without using a separate page. You do agree that we have to talk about Tokyo Trial in some way right? -- Taku 23:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you're asking me or Grant, but I'll be bold and say: Yes, this article should convey the important points about the Tokyo Trial, with a wikilink to International Military Tribunal for the Far East, where the details should go. JamesMLane 01:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that omission of the Tokyo trials until recently was a major oversight. I would never say that the Tokyo Trials should not be mentioned, just that they are only part of the story of trials of Japanese personnel. I have moved the section dealing with this up to show what I mean.

Also, I have to say I am deeply uncomfortable with generalisations like "Japan", "South Korea" and "China", when we are talking about a particular government, especially governments which were not even elected. Grant65 (Talk) 03:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Let's edit.

I believe I know a way to make the article more... neutral. It has to be rearranged in the following way:

1. Some historical background. A few word on Japanese traditions and Bushido. Civilians are to provide everything required for the samurai, becoming a POWs strips a person of any respect and rights. Opening of borders, industrializing and building an empire.

2. List of atrocities.

3. List of trials.

4. Modern attitudes. Few words on China and others using the history to pressure modern Japan politically.

This anonymous edit was made by 211.30.211.93, keep doing vandalisms in other pages. The user's NPOV means his/her pov or communist view. He just hate Japan. --Flowerofchivalry 03:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And your NPOV? Your NPOV just means denying anything that remotely differs from YOUR version of history. Your NPOV means your POV and your neo-nazi holocause denial views. You just hate China. -Hmib 06:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to take your post as a personal attack against me. Read NPOV and show me when and how I have neo-nazi holocaust denial views. If you continue writing this silly assault, I have to accuse you as a vandal user. Calm down and stop personal attacking.

--Flowerofchivalry 21:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who should be reading NPOV, not me. -Hmib 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I started reorganizing the page a bit and created sub-headings for the different views, looks a lot nicer don't you think? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, let's try to be contructive rather than destructive here =) everyone take a deep breath. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Japan is not admitting itself to be guilty of war crimes that is the problem in here.the U.S is guilty in Vietnam & the Philippines of war crimes & yes the U.S admits it.Germany is guilty of the holocaust & yes they admit it.

POV and Neutrality

I know Flowerofchivalry believes this is POV, but does anyone else think so? I've removed the signs

I think your edits are highly POV. How come you can generalize that inhumane treatments were the behavior of the entire Japanese people? Do you have any sources on this? Also you ignore the fact that there is official apology made by the Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. His speech is called a Shushou Danwa (Prime minister's discourse), and this means it's official. Therefore his speech was even translated into English and are still available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website. --Tkh 01:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The government as a whole has NOT apologized or else the Chinese would not be making a fuss. The prime minister has delivered statements, but this is without the approval of the entire government. [2] You misinterpreted what I wrote. Because the culture of Japan was based on warrior code, the "war crimes" are not isolated incidents based on a few powerful aberrations in Japan, but rather fostered in the warrior culture of Japan. Also, please explain why this article is POV and violated neutrality. CharlesZ 02:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

First, your definition of the whole government is POV. It is not widely accepted. If it is, cite sources. The official apology made by the Prime Minister Murayama had been approved by the cabinet which represents the Japanese government, and the cabinet is approved by the legislators. Therefore his speech is an official apology made by the Japanese government. Study how the parliamentary system and democracy work. If every single legislator must agree with what the Prime Minister states to be qualified as an official statement by the government, there would be no official statements. That kind of system only works in a totalitarian country. Also, your claim that the Japanese culture was based on warrior code is too naive. Around the end of Edo period, only 7-10% of Japanese population were samurais. As for the tags on the article, let's leave them to someone who is neutral and not involved in this discussion. --Tkh 04:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

My claim is that the Japanese culture was heavily influenced by a warrior culture. You refute this claim, thus implying that the Japanese culture was not heavily influenced by a warrior culture at that time. If that is so, then that entire section has no business doing here. If Japanese military culture did not have heavy influence, then its purpose of providing a background to the atrocities is pointless, since it did not really influence the culture according to you. Also, I apologize for my vague claims about the government not apologizing as a whole and I agree the edit was POV on the point of simply being false. I want to give explanations to why the Chinese have not accepted apologies. The government apologizes but refuses to pay any compensation money. They are half-hearted, empty words and while they do apologize, no actual action is put behind the words. What I meant was that from the point of view of a Chinese, these apologies are only meant to save face.

As for leaving the tags, this discussion was started to discuss why the tags are there, so the purpose for being involved in this discussion is regarding the tags. We are deliberating fact here and I think all the facts are correct. If you can tell me WHY the neutrality and POV tags should stay... CharlesZ 18:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not refuting your claim. I just provided information. I actually don't know whether the worrior code had heavily influenced on the Japanese soldiers to commit atrocities. If you could provide more information to back up your claim on this, I would appreciate you. Also I understnad your sufferings, but please keep in mind that the PM Murayama worked very hard to make his speech an official one.

As for the tags, I agree with you because now that I don't see any specific POV issues in the article. Although I'm not sure if the article needs cleanup or not, anyone can add it if he/she think so. Thus I removed the tags. --Tkh 19:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think I was the one who originally added the NPOV tag. I haven't been editing this article so I didn't notice its removal. On giving the article a quick read now, I think it's still biased. I don't have time at the moment to participate in it, so I won't restore the tag, but I suggest these major points: (1) The entire discussion of bushido and its role is simply asserted as fact. Even if the passage is correct, these are not observable facts (like the outcome of the the Sino-Japanese War), so any conclusion about the influence of Bushido should be attributed to the historian or other expert who holds that opinion. (2) Along with providing attributions for opinions, there should be citations for allegations about matters of fact when the facts are likely to be controversial. There's presumably no dispute about the assertion that Japan didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, so that's fine as it is. By contrast, the assertion that millions of people died in a preventable famine in 1944-45 should be supported with a citation. (3) There are several other places where the article displays a strong anti-Japanese bias, such as dragging in a gratuitous comparison to Nazi Germany. Just describe the dictatorial practices that were in effect and let the facts speak for themselves.

Some people may denounce my comments as calling for a cover-up of Japanese atrocities. I'm not. I offer you this explanation, from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Another example:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

The subject of this article needs to be treated the same way. JamesMLane 06:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

What I want to know, and I've asked this before, is what specific matters need references? List them and I will attempt to attend to them. Otherwise the POV tag just seem to reflect a discomfort and/or ignorance about matters which are dealt with elsewhere on Wikipedia without references. It is a standing insult to the integrity of the many people who have contributed to this article. If the specific POV issues are not listed within four weeks of today's date then I will remove the POV tag. Grant65 (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I second that, but make it two. --Miborovsky 06:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed. There are now at least nine books listed as references, at least 16 external websites and links to numerous Wikipedia articles. Anyone who still has a problem with the page should provide specific details of what that they believe that problem to be, showing how it is NPOV and/or attempt to resolve it themselves. Grant65 (Talk) 10:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My recent reversions

I have reverted Ratwod's restructuring because there was some material deleted, including the main definition in the "Other views" section. I guess that was unintentional. In general I couldn't see that his changes made any more sense than the previous/present structure, and it violated the agreement above with Taku, that the article should include the Japanese definition of war crimes, which revolves around the Tokyo trials and includes crimes against the Japanese people by the military dictatorship, in addition to those committed against people in and from other countries. My feeling in general is that major changes to structure should be discussed here first. Grant65 (Talk) 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Were the allies hypocrites

Unfortunately this new section is very POV, written by someone attemptign to redress the balance. It offers editorial opinion, along with unsubstantiated facts. This section is especially dubious:

"Practically everything the Japanese did and believed was performed earlier in history by the Allied powers, including theories of racial and cultural superiority that justified imperialism, genocide, biological and chemical warfare, rape, torture, forced labour and so on."

This is very POV and I can't see any evidence that its true. I don't know of examples of the Allied powers using POWs as slave labour, murdering hospital patients, forcing civilians to work as prostitutes for their armies, carrying out medical experiments on POWs etc. Unless someone can explain the theory behind this allegation it should be removed. and

" In World War II, many Allied military leaders authorised tactics that they themselves recognised as war crimes, such as the bombing and strafing civilians."

I'm not sure they actually recognised their actions as war crimes. Did Arthur Harris ever say he believed area bombing was a war crime? It seems very unlikely, so unless there are references to support this I would like to remove this too. In fact, it would probably be easier if this whole section was removed. Its not really the role of an encyclopedia to ask a question in this way. If anyone thinks the allies were just as bad as the Japanese then they can always create their own page Allied atrocities against the Japanese to make themselves feel better.JW 22:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This page is Japanese war crimes, and all other crimes are irrelevent. Condemning the allies as hypocrites is just POV, as it

1. contributes nothing to the page
2. reflects the editor's personal bias
3. cannot be wholly substantiated

Therefore I second the removal of that paragraph.
-- Miborovsky ^U|T|C|E 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is overstated as it reads at the moment, but I think it should substantially rewritten rather than deleted. For example, "performed earlier in history by the Allied powers" I would take to be a reference to colonialism prior to WW2. The Japanese did use as an excuse for their behaviour the excesses of western Europeans and Americans around the world. If we don't have a section like that, people will probably keep trying to add it. Grant65 (Talk) 23:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the section. The main reason is not just the obvious and offensive POV, but the fact that it is irrelevant. Much of it is also inaccurate and not supported by any evidence. Whether the allied powers committed atrocities against other peoples decades before WWII or not is not really relevant to this article. This is an article about Japanese war crimes, not the evils of colonialism. JW 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of consistency you should now remove the similar section from Nuremburg Trials. Grant65 (Talk) 23:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No comment Jeff? Grant65 (Talk) 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a comparable section on the Nuremberg Trials page, only a mention that the trials were restricted to Axis powers. JW 16:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what I meant:

There were no trials for war crimes committed by people from Allied countries. These included attacks on German vessels displaying Red Cross flags, such as the Laconia incident, and the mistreatment of prisoners of war. It is usual that the armed forces of a civilised country^[3] issue their forces with detailed guidance on what is and is not permitted under their military code. These are drafted to include any international treaty obligations and the customary laws of war. For example at the trial of Otto Skorzeny his defence was in part based on the Field Manual published by the War Department, United States Army, on 1 October, 1940, and The American Soldiers' Handbook^[4]. A member of the armed forces of a modern democracy who breaks their own military code can expect to face a court martial. Allied personnel were occasionally tried, for example as a result of the Biscari Massacre, while Axis personnel were never tried by their own miltary justice systems for war crimes.

Grant65 (Talk) 23:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see there's anything wrong with that section because it seems to be accurate and relevant. It's reasonable to point out that the Nuremberg trials were restricted to crimes committed by the Axis powers. But that's not the same as offering an opinion that the allies were just as bad as the Nazis, that Nazi war crimes could somehow be justified, and that the allies were hypocritical for complaining. JW 09:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the section (perhaps) needed a new title and a major rewrite, but we should at least mention the issue of Allied war crimes against the Japanese. Otherwise it looks rather one sided. Grant65 (Talk) 00:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily object to that, as long as they were specific examples involving the Japanese. But that would be something completely different anyway. JW 21:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Organization

The current organization of the article is a mess. You need a definition of "war crimes"--it appears in another article, so you could simply refer a person to that article.

This is a historical article. Therefore, the organization should be chronological. A simple time line discussion of 1890s, 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, and the trials is easy enough.

"Are the allies hypocrites" is obviously POV. I don't have any qualm with the question--there is at least a good argument that the firebombing of Europe and Japan were war crimes. However, the article is addressed to Japanese war crimes. The way to handle the discussion is to create an article entitled "Allied Atrocities during WWII".ratwod[[

See my comments above under "My recent reversions". The point of the present structure is that there are different definitions of war crimes. According to some people the whole article is POV, which is part of the reason why we have a small section the Allies. Note also that the Nuremburg Trials article also mentions specific Allied war crimes. Grant65 (Talk) 00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The organization makes the article very confusing.

The crimes should come before the trials. ratwod

No, because the trials are part of the definition. Grant65 (Talk) 23:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

He's got a point though.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is structured the way it is because it proved too difficult and controversial to attempt a single definition of "Japanese war crimes". It was agreed that we should have a distinction between Japanese and non-Japanese definitions of "Japanese war crimes". (The article is not about war crimes in general, the Geneva Convention, etc, so there is no sense in starting with general definitions, and the link to war crime is there anyway.) The Japanese definition revolves around the Tokyo trials. It makes no sense to separate the Tokyo trial from the other trials, which are less well-known but actually more significant in terms of the numbers tried and the length of time involved. Grant65 (Talk) 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm *not* talking about the content of the article. There is some very good stuff in here. Each paragraph, taken individually, is pretty good. The problem is that the article hops around from subject to subject. You start with "definitions"--in the middle of "definitions", you then discuss "other trials", although "other trials" doesn't have anything to do with "definitions". Then, you jump back to talking about "definitions", and then somehow end up with a comparison of Nazi Germany and Japan. It is an interesting discourse, but how does that relate to "definitions"? If you are going to talk about "definitions", then you should talk about "definitions" and only "definitions". You then hop to "background"--great. But, under the subheading "background", you also have "1930s-1940s" (which, is not "background" at all, but the meat of the article). You end with a great section on "post-1945" attitudes. If you do some organizational work on the article, this would really be outstanding. The way it is, a person has really wade through it to pull out the good stuff. ratwod

Iraq War

I don't think this even warrants discussion, but I'm not going to risk the 3RR violation. I think it is grossly trivialising to the subject to include the stuff about the Iraq War, especially in the first paragraph.

The historical jury is still out on the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq; I can't see how the presence of a small contingent of Japanese non-combat personnel in Iraq is comparable to the Rape of Nanjing or the Death Railway. In fact, no alleged war crime committed by coalition forces in Iraq is in the same ballpark as that. IMO this is ahistorical, "presentism" of the worst kind. Grant65 (Talk) 08:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Iraq is totally irrelevant unless allegations of war crimes by the Japanese are made. This is somebody apparently not understanding what "war crime" means. 81.131.124.114 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand very well what a war crime is, and while it's OK to mention the controversy about Japan's role in Iraq, I'm not satisfied with the way it has been done by contributors to this page. Grant65 (Talk) 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes like there's logic in determining why abusing your own citizens i.e. the Koreans is a war crime. CHECK MATE

• I've removed the Iraq War section again. Only Grant65 and I have had any discussion about this recently, and no-one has been able to offer a coherent argument as to why it should be included. If Japanese soldiers in Iraq are accused of war crimes it can be re-instated; but until then its irrelevant to this article as a war crime and a crime against peace are different concepts. JW 14:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeff...clearly they have been accused of crimes against peace by Japanese activists. I don't know what your attitude to the Iraq war is but are you sure you aren't letting it cloud your approach to this issue? Grant65 (Talk) 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but no. Whether the Iraq War was a "crime against peace" or not is debatable. But my understanding is that a "crime against peace" and a "war crime" are different concepts. We could always change the article name to make it clear we are discussing a historical event. Something like Imperial Japanese war crimes or whatever. JW 15:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the Crown's dealing with Koreans a war crime? i.e. is it "in the same ballpark"

Well my most gracious thanks to Grant65 for raising this premise on the rather 'fair' and 'educated' selection of events that qualify to be mentioned on this very informative article. Now I ask whether dealing with Koreans, who were widely recognised in the international community as having been held under sovereignty of the Japanese Crown from 1910 to 1945 warrants any legitimate instigation of "war crimes" within your lexicon? Or do you subscribe to this rather revisionist thought that sovereignty of Korea resides with the Korean people on the abdication of the Choson Crown? I dare you learned sir to disclose by quoting your most expansive knowlege in international law to determine which thought you concur.

If in the case you declare that sovereignty resided with the Japanese crown or fail to prove the matter rested with the Korean Provisional Republic, I expect you to explain how the Korean 'atrocities' could reside within your ballpark beyond the explanation in infliction of death and physical/physically induced mental injuryfor rebels are not covered under the Geneva Accords on treatment of Prisoners of War. If your explanation is unsatisfactory, why are you oblivious to the continuing presence of Korean affairs in this article? why not delete both Iraq and Korea and save face already.

I believe this is a water tight, rational and fair challenge to those who keep deleting selective accusations while keeping those that have not been proven in the last 50 years. I think it is to do with one's nation's guilt; to render Japan culpable for Iraq will render for instance the United States or Australia to which those users belong in the same conspirators. You will win I guess, I doubt those users have any extensive knowledge of international law on the tests of sovereingty and Nuremburg precedents. To them, their concept of war crimes in a very lay and faux popular fasion is narrowly limited to as you said: death, physicial injury and physically induced mental injury. It extends greater than that to the realms of conspiracy of primary and secondary participants in the creation and exectution of aggressive policies, and suggested in obiter dictum, inchoate actions for the purpose of aggression.

Bison augustus 02:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Come off it. The people of Korea did not want to be part of the Japanese Empire. Therefore they were an occupied/subject people for 35 years. I wouldn't be so confident in saying that the majority of people in present day Iraq want the tiny Japanese contingent to leave or regard them as war criminals. Grant65 (Talk) 09:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that accroding to popular opinion, de jure sovereignty rested in the Japanese Crown for that bitter 35 years. As mediator I have set a compromise that both Iraq and Korean issues shall not have relevance here and its exisitng details will be sent to relevant articles.

Callaghan772

I could live with this compromise, as Grant65 summarised in his latest Iraq revert: it's...outright propaganda we don't want to make both sides look like fools any further do we? LOL thank you Callaghan.

At last, to a finality

I thank you for inviting me to this MSN session to discuss on placing this compromise, I am rather satsified with it. While the oppossition led by this Australian wikipedian Grant65 cannot make satisfactory cases to distinguish Iraq's relevance from this article and why issues on Korea should be preserved. Afterall the Japanese acts of brutality against Koreans are no more war crimes as Anglo-Australian brutality against Aboriginal Australians that continues to this day. Their earliest British ancestors have settled Australia by vice of terra nullius by meaning to fail to recognise the humanity of the native residents and have long mistreated the natives beyond the time of Japan's tyrannical grip on Korea. For this I put it to you:

Come off it. The Aboriginal people of Australian did not want and don't want to be part of the Commonwealth and subjects of the British Crown

Then by all means admit these acts of oppression against the Aborigines fit within the complete defintion of your so called war crimes

[[User:Bison augustus|Bison augustus] 11:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is clearly someone with no idea what kind of regime was in place in Japan prior to 1945, and no comprehension of the content of this article. Unlike present-day indigenous Australians, Koreans in 1910-45 were not full citizens of a democratic Japan which had the rule of law and legal rights for ethnic/cultural minorities.

What does this have to do with Iraq? Grant65 (Talk) 00:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Does full citizenship include having your children taken away by basis of race?

Not usually. The Koreans who were killed, assaulted, raped, robbed and/or conscripted by the Empire of Japan's military and/or its Yakuza sub-contractors weren't even citizens. Their descendants living in Japan are an underclass one rung above the burakumin.

Once again, what does this have to do with Iraq? Grant65 (Talk) 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Japan's Korean holocaust is nothing compared to white Australia's oppression against Aborigines. Like throw a native person 6 months in jail in 1981 fro spitting on a bottlestore owner who allegedly hiked up alochol prices is far noble treatment than what the Japanese do to zainichi-Koreans of that day.

That's a rather harsh thing to say against a convict race LOL both nations compliment each other: Japanese savage race/Australian convict race.

Racism isn't cool. Cease and desist.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 07:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, probably in vain, what the point of this is supposed to be. I reinstated the stuff about Korea and the Iraq War. (I might point out that the minority of Australians who are descended from British convicts are generally proud to be their descendants. Their main "crime" was to be poor in the UK/Ireland. They were not generally oppressors of indigenous Australians, an accusation which is more commonly directed towards police forces and the British military. ) 11:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Then indeed you Anlgo-Australians are no bette rthan those Barbarian Japanese

Protected status

I requested protection of the page because of the frenetic rate of edits/reversions which were taking place without discussion. Does anyone have a major problem with the way the page now appears? If so, please tell us. It's better that we resolve it here. Grant65 (Talk) 23:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Iraq is a separate issue and isn't relevant to this article. JW 13:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it clearly is relevant to a some people. We wouldn't have had this flurry of edits and reverts if it wasn't.Grant65 (Talk) 14:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It looked to me like it was the same person constantly reinstating it. We don't generally allow content to be dictated by one user, we create articles by consensus. JW 11:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It was at least three people I believe. And whether or not Japan's involvement in Iraq is a crime against peace, the protests in Japan are clearly related to the pre-1945 Japanese war crimes. That is the relevance of Iraq; it shows that the pre-1945 events still have meaning in Japan. Grant65 (Talk) 16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not really what the section says. Its inclusion gives the impression that the Japanese haven't changed since WWII and that the Iraq war is equivalent to WWII Japanese war crimes, neither of which is true. The edit history shows two people reinstating the Iraq section; Hola79 and an anonymous user. Based on the pattern of edits and the language used they look like the same person. And that section has now been removed by at least four different registered users. JW 19:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the sentence which says: "...it is highly controversial to describe Japan's involvement in Iraq as a war crime, and it is considered most unlikely that any official will be charged in relation to these events." Grant65 (Talk) 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of phraseology or caveats; its inclusion suggests equivalence. It is irrelevant because no Japanese soldiers have been accused of war crimes in Iraq, and considering their role there its unlikely they ever will be. A "crime against peace" is not the same thing at all as a war crime, which is what this article is concerned with. Several editors have removed that section, calling it "nonsense" and "vandalism"; you yourself said it was absurd. I've seen no evidence to suggest that the protests in Japan over Iraq are directly related to Japanese war crimes in WWII. Given the general ignorance in Japan of Japanese behaviour in WWII, it is much more likely that the protests are a) because the Iraq war is unpopular b) because Iraq was invaded without UN approval c) because Japan is now a pacifist country since Horoshima and Nagasaki and d) because of the post-1945 restriction on the deployment of Japanese forces overseas. JW 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I recall that when the first German peacekeepers were sent overseas, there were similar protests in Germany. Not everyone in Japan is ignorant and/or wants to sweep events pre-1945 under the carpet. In fact it seems logical that the people protesting the Japanese involvement in Iraq would be better informed and more vocal about the Japanese Empire than most people in Japan. But of course I have no evidence.

I think this issue hinges on whether or not we include crimes against peace in the article, since that is something that the Axis powers were guilty of and it is the subjective/popular connection, however unjust, between 1937 and 2005. I also think we really need to cover the issue of crimes against peace in the article, regardless of the Iraq issue. Grant65 (Talk) 14:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There were protests against the war all over the world, I don't think those in Japan had a different basis from those elsewhere. This article is really about Imperial Japan, which is really a different country from modern Japan. If we start including Iraq, etc. it just becomes a page of complaints against the Japanese, rather than an article about historical events. JW 10:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

They were "different" because of Japan's history as having been an extremely aggressive country within living memory. That doesn't apply to the others involved in Iraq (except Italy). You can argue that the two things really have nothing in common — and I would be inclined to agree — but that isn't how a sigificant number of people see the issue. Perceptions are significant things, however wrong they may be. Grant65 (Talk) 10:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't think they are related, and I don't, then whose perception is this? Is there any evidence that a link was made between the Iraq war and Japanese war crimes in WWII by anyone other than Hola79 ? JW 11:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mergefrom Asian Holocaust

Given the sparsity of that article and that it deals exclusively with Japanese war crimes, I think it would make sense, but perhaps be controversial to do this merge. Since the page is protected, I'm placing the mergefrom notice here until it can be placed on the main page. Caerwine 03:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.Grant65 (Talk) 11:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Although the merge is reasonable, Asian Holocaust probably shouldn't be a redirect because the phrase is sometimes used to describe events other than WWII, eg. Cambodia. JW 11:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There ought to be a new article name, some things events here are not war crimes but are just as reprehensible.

• Actually, Asian Holocaust deserve separate article for the reason that it have more "existential" issue. Firstly, it is an attempt on Chinese side of Japanese war crime debate to freeride on Holocaust bandwagon which tend to offend Jewish sensitivity Secondly, it is an example of Holcaust exceptionalism where every megaside (Ruwanda, Soviet Gulag, Khmer Rouge and so on) is somewhat a sub class of Hocaust which is somewhat advocated by many Jewish groups. So far there is no substantial attempt/project/debate to built gigaside musium in any countries while Holocaust museum/memorial is popping up in courties outside of Germany and Israel despite the fact that there are other mass/mega/giga murder which is more horendous (in term of number including Japanese atrocities) and/or more recent than Holocaust. Thirdly, Japan government is not the number one perpetrator of mass murder in Asia. They only get the third spot and fails to get deka murderer status. The first and the second spot is held by Chinese Communist and Nationalist regime each attaining dekacide status. [5] So the spin that AsianHolocaust=JapaneseAtrocities can be regarded as denial or at least diversion on the side of Chinese to face up to enormity of the historical fact. FWBOarticle

Good God, and you are lynching Negroes! How does anything that either the Nationalist or Communist Chinese do in any way affect JAPANESE war crimes? Does the Holocaust have to be the ethnic cleansing that killed the most people? The Germans killed more Russian civilians than Jews, should Russians get the Holocaust 'title'? Jews weren't the only people being systematically eliminated, should we no longer refer to their destruction as the Holocaust? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected this article as there seems to be no ongoing discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Japanese atrocities in Andaman Jail

Japan occupied Andaman Jail during world war II and it committed various atrocities on both the Indian Freedom Fighters lodged in those jails and the British jail wardens and staff. Thousands of Indians were killed by machine gunning them off boats on the sea, in the middle of the night, so as to hide their activities. Seeing that this topic is not brought to open talk in such forums confirms that the Japanese barbarians have indeed succeeded in covering up their activities. This had happened even though Subash Chandra Bose was supporting the Japanese fight the British, and the Indian Freedom Fighters were also opposing the British, though in a non-violent way shown by Mahatma Gandhi. Is this how Japan shows its loyalty to Subash Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army?

Also many hundreds of Tamils who were taken to Malaya and Burma by the British to work as labourers in the plantations there, were tasked to constructing the Japanese railway lines in Burma and they died due to being over worked and starvations and mistreatment at the hands of the barbaric Japanese Imperial Army. Entire families perished. What wrong did they commit against Japan? Is being a human in Japanese controlled territory a crime? I want an answer for this. I doubt any sensible Japanese is there that can give a consoling answer to all this. Japan will face its punishment one day (possibly by a huyper-super-ultra Tsunami & earthquake that wipes out all of Japan) & that time it will feel more sorry than when it was nuclear bombed by the USA.

I shall not forgive Japan, unless it issues an official apology, from the Barbarian Japanese Army's General Staff, the Barbarian Emperor King of Japan, the Barbarian Prime Minister and other barbarian politicians of Japan, and also identify the vicitm's families and give them adequate war repartations. If I were the Prime Minister of India, I would have cut off all relations with Japan until the above mentioned apology and war repartation was done. Japanese society is a non-human society: Monkeys living in human form. They cannot accept failure and cannot live side by side with other civilizations like Koreans, Chinese, Indians, etc. They are the world's number one pessimists, and a major enemy to human civilization itself. In short Japs are mad men wearing coats and suits, but lack a respect for other cultures.

I call upon all people of all races and nationalities to boycott Japanese products & services. Throw your Susuki, Sony, Toyota products into the garbage bin and buy your own nation's product to promote yoru local economy. The Japs, having failed to conqure the world by guns are trying to do it by their prodcuts. Awaken, and repel those mad Japs. We should place an embargo on Japan and not trade any food or other items with it, so as to starve them to bring them back to their senses: that no person can live in isolation & by mistreating other cultures. Let them eat their own Toyota cars and drink their Sony gadgets.

Shut up

I'll buy Sony products forever, loser. Quit bitching about things that happened 60 years ago.

---

what does buying sony products has to do with anything? this is an article discussing the warcrimes of the japanese.

quit bitching? if your family got raped by an invading army and 60 years later people tell you to quit bitching about it, how would you feel?

Recent changes

Yoji, the need to begin the article with the differing definitions, was agreed after lengthy discussion. I think we need to start with definitions or at least the controversy over them, including Japanese definitions. If there are popular definitions in Japan which differ from the government ones then this should be pointed out.

? I don't quite get it. I think I'm missing the previous discussion which happened in this page. I specifically made section for the Japanese Government Position. So anything stated there is attributed to the government. I based my narrative mainly on technical argument so I don't do some very post-modern narrative seen in the Background section. I also made clear attribution to the opinon of legal scholars' technical consensus. I was not clear of attribution between neo-right and neo-left because it is quite hard to see which argument belong to which side. Am I missing something here?

I also don't understand why the new section "War Crime Debates in Japan " should precede "Post-1945 reactions". Surely the debates are "Post-1945 reactions"? Grant65 | Talk 19:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And as you wrote in the article, there really wasn't much of a "debate" in Japan before the 1990s.Grant65 | Talk 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ah, firstly, I think the entire article should start from Tokyo and other Tribunal. I put "Background" and "International Difinition" first because I thought that would give better flow of narrative. "Post-1945 reactions" is merely a collection of left over from my copy editing. As of the level of debate, I wasn't clear there. In Japanese tabloid magazine, it is No Hold Bar flaming for extrem right and/or left since 60s but usually any editorial in these magazines aren't taken seriously. The real debate actually started in 1970, when a Japanese newspaper (Asahi, I think) did article on Nanking Massacre which provoked more respectable element of the right. Just that these debate wasn't main stream like now. It became really main stream in 90s partly because the comfort woman issue, partly because of the end of the cold war, partly because of the internet especially 2 channell forum and partly because of a manga called "Gomanism" by Kobayashi Yoshinori which brought the debate into TV, all somewhat made voicing of right wing (conservative) opinion on TV acceptable. Till 80s liberal view and their historical narrative were the dominant idea but just like America, 90s saw a resurgence of conservative pundit in major Japanese media hence the debate between the right and the left.

OK, I have reverted the article to the older structure (while retaining your new content) to show you what I meant. I have two points: 1. Much of the new material is good and interesting but it belongs in the "Post-1945 reactions" section. 2. My main point previously was that I think we need to begin the article with a "Definitions" section, both Japanese (and official Japanese and non-official Japanese) and non-Japanese. Grant65 | Talk 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not contributing to "definition" debate, because I don't have much factual information to add on existential question. Something can be "refered" as international "law" in media when enough countries sign a international "treaty" which can have many signatory on one paper. But the authority of such law/treaty rest entirely on each signatory. So it is by definition not an "international" law in the sence that it doesn't superced individual state authority. Since Japan didn't even sign Geneva, any reference on Geneva would be entirely philosophical. I haven't called the emperor naked in this article partly because my nationality would provoke accusations of bias and denial. That is why I attributed everyting to Japanese government or Japanese jurist or Japanese debates (right and left) which specifically deal with this (law/treaty) issue. Yoji Hajime

If you want my opinion on this entire page, first, take "culture" out from the "background". It looks stupid. Just talk about japanese atrocities which is the background of War Crimes thingy. Then forget about "international defnition". Instead, Just explain Potsdam especially the part which is relevant to Tokyo and other Tribunal. Then describe Tokyo and other Tribunal. Then San Francesco Treaty, and other bilateral treaties Japan signed. Then "Compensation" (which I'm doing now). Up to here, everything is factual and/or technical so it will be concise and informative without any existential agony. After that one could have more phisolophical section such as "apology" or "debates on war crime" or "German war crime vs Japanese war crime" or "Asian Holocaust" (a stupid words symbolising Holocaust exceptionalism where every giga murder is somewhat a sub-class of Jewish gigaside despite the fact that twice more Chinese died than Jews). Enough ranting. See ya. (^_^) Yoji Hajime

In general, I think we should follow chronological order, except that the differing definitions need to come first, to establish the subject. As for "culture", I'm not clear what you mean. I think we definitely need something on this. We need to explain the difference between how the Imperial military conducted itself when fighting (e.g.) Russia in 1905, as opposed to China in 1931 and the Netherlands in 1942 (etc). Or is it just the word "culture" that you object to?

In regard to "International definitions", I also think we need something which explains the outrage outside Japan, whether or not such outrage had any basis in international law. (It certainly had a basis in local civil and military codes in occupied countries and these were generally used for trials other than the Tokyo Trials. It occurs to me that we have not, but probably should, dealt with the legal basis/bases of those trials.) And it is pertinent that the Geneva Convention did not have any legal applicability, as it was possibly the most common source of the outrage in Allied countries (once again, regardless of whether such outrage had any basis in law.) Grant65 | Talk 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Iraqi material, Hypocrisy of the former Allied nations involved in the current invasion and occupation?

Someone had bothered to refer the Kellogg-Briand Pact in its application in the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, yet most of those 'frequent' contributors to this article have hastely deleted such application of the principles incorporated in the Pact and the trials to Japan's stance on Iraq by 'popular consensus' and are reluctant to revisit the issue again. Co-incidently most of these contributers are Americans, Australians and Koreans as self-declared in their own pages. As you might realize, these nations have sent combatants to Iraq so it is only natural for these users to mitigate potential transgressions their nations have committed.

I saw one reason a user opted to delete the analogous section is that it's grossly trivialising real war crimes if placed in the same context (article). As if compromising a nation's sovereignty by waging an aggressive war wasn't serious enough to warrant solemn scrutiny.

Kilimanjaronum 01:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reword the section on the controversy regarding Iraq, in Japan, in a way that was acceptable to everyone, but it didn't seem to be acceptable to anyone and it was deleted by another editor.

I have to say, it is hard to see how such a charge can be levelled against Japan, when the Japanese forces are non-combat personnel, who require protection by infantry from other countries and their presence is accepted by the new Iraqi government. Grant65 | Talk 09:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But my understanding is that a "crime against peace" and a "war crime" are different concepts obviously someone who like many don't know how to give a definitive distinction between crimes against humanity and war crimes and adding an open premise that only 'hisotorical' incidents could care to explain how s/he arrived to this prompt 'conclusion'?.

"War crimes" v "atrocities"

Yoji (now known as FWBOArticle) has raised the issue of the name of the article and basic terminology. From previous discussions of this (see above), I'm not sure what to think. Somehow I got the impression that "atrocities" is regarded as emotive and inflammatory. There is technical justification for the use of the term "war crimes", e.g. in Japan's acceptance of the verdicts of the tribunals, and also in the Japanese military code of the time. What do others think? Grant65 | Talk 04:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the article

Strange: why is there no corresponding article on American war crimes? Mikademus 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is well balanced in my view. Im very sad that the Japanese cannot become members of the human race until they do as the Germans have done and admit their appalling behaviour. 25% of Australian families after WW2 had a relative who was killed, imprisoned or tortured by the Japanese.

I am sad and disappointed by the website and will not contribute to it anymore nor pay much attention or give credit to the this so-called encyclopedia which is a sorry amalgam of U.S.-British prejudices. This is most highly unacceptable with regards to the page on Japanese war crimes. Millions of Chinese and Koreans were tortured to death in Japanese concentration camps. My father was an eyewitness to some of the atrocious war crimes committed in Singapore by the Japanese army and it haunts him to this very day. I cannot believe that due to Japanese economic power, both British and Americans call the Japanese War Crimes "biased", as if these were only one point of view. Worse still, the page on Nagasaki does not fully highlight the effects of the Nagasaki bombings on Japanese children who were born malformed even many decades later. Technology is controlled by the rich and developed countries and the political truth amended to conform to those in power. I now know first hand how history writing works and will never believe a single word of it. All human history are lies. If China was a weaker nation, the truth would never surface just like what America is doing in Iraq now raping and pillaging the people, that will never get reports in the press, all we see will always be Bush's doctored truth on the New York Times proclaiming the war on terror. Anyone with a single braincell in their head will know what is truth and what is a lie and have no need for this stupid encyclopedia whose aim is to further Anglo-American control over spheres of knowledge and of truth. Truth is found in the heart, is found in love and not on some Internet Encyclopedia. Truth is found in the heart.

There needs to be a way to present this information, especially in light of all the people that died. If you can find a better way to organized this please do so. This is a huge part of Chinese and Korean history, if Japan does not want it mentioned in their section that is fine, but don't just delete it. Fix what ever POV you don't like. Is a quote by a Chinese woman affected by Unit 731 a POV. How is the information presented in Nazi-Germany about the Holocaust and crimes. Maybe we can follow that organization method. I'm open to suggestions.

What should we re-name this site as??? Any suggestions??

If the this site is allowed to quote people who lived through the Nazi terror, then I doubt quoting a Korean civilian or Allied POW who lived through the Japanese terror is any different. I don't believe in double standards. Either you keep all of it or delete all of it.

There's a lot of Nanjing Massacre deniers here, who try to push their historical denial under the guise of 'NPOV'. I find it disturbing that the primary evidence of the Nanjing survivors are taken off just because some Japanese Sinophobic Holocaust denier, born many decades after the massacrte, said so, and how can their bullcrap be counted as factual evidence? I don't see any 'facts' from Neo-Nazis on the Holocaust article, or Japanese denials of atrocities committed on Americans. The sorry state of this article an only be blamed on the strong anti-Chinese, anti-Communist paranoia on Wikipedia.

You say that technology is controlled by the rich and deveoped countries" and that we right the history. Anyone with the internet can add to wikipedia, and since America ranks 16th worldwide in internet connectivity, I would hardly say we control it's content.

American is not the only developed country. North America and Europe are responsible for almost 55% of world's internet usage.