Talk:Jewish settlement in the Japanese Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Renaming of this article[edit]

One has to say this is the only positive thing to occur due the Protocols. - Sparky 02:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words “denies these claim, stating that there is no evidence to suggest that,” seem way to strong in light of the quote I inserted from Ben-Ami Shillony's book; therefore I replaced that phrase with the word "questions." --Daneck (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shillony states clearly there is no evidence. This is supported by Japanese academics. The first problem with Tokayer's book is that is it fictionalized. There can be no argument with this. It was a book written to appeal to certain sentiments.
The second problem is that his fictionalized account of the events, in particular the use of the term "Fugu Plan" has so entered the collective consciousness as a fact. As Shillony states more than once, there was no "Fugu Plan" and what discussion there was, was certainly not entitled the Fugu Plan.
I do not know what the Wikipedia protocol as to discussing books is. What I suggest to resolve this is that we move the page to a title that reflect reality and the recorded facts.
I am proposing, "Jewish settlement in Manchukuo", I do not know if there is a better title to include all Showa Japan occupied territories Thanks. --Aho-ono (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shanghai and Kobe are not in Manchuria, so that's a problem right there. But, yeah, if you're that upset by the term "Fugu Plan," we can move it to something more descriptive, though I'm not sure what exactly. What terms does Shillony use?
Look, I'm not trying to argue that Tokayer's version of the facts is accurate, or more true, or better than Shillony's. If you say you have reliable, scholarly sources to back up Shillony's version, I believe you and I won't give you trouble over it. ::::However, this article should not be about Shillony and Tokayer, but rather it should be about Jews in Imperial Japan in the 1930s. This is not the place for arguing one scholar's version over another person's, for refuting claims or dismantling arguments, but for describing objective historical fact to the best of our ability. As much as possible, scholars' names should be seen only in the footnotes, and not in the text (Tokayer said this, but Shillony said this); that's the style of writing for academic arguments, not for an encyclopedia. LordAmeth (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED to Jewish settlement in Imperial Japan, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fugu Plan → Jewish settlement in Manchukuo — harej (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above discussion. —harej (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Please provide some rationale. The article only mentions settlement in Shanghai, nowhere near Manchukuo. — AjaxSmack 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling for the correct taxomony. What about

Fugu Plan → Jewish settlement in Showa Japan or Fugu Plan → Showa Japan's relationship with Zionism?

I am not sure how suitable for the Wikipedia the latter idea is. Of course, we are not talking about only 'Japan' either but Japanese occupied territories. What would be the acceptable term for them.

The problem as I see it is that there was no such thing as "The Fugu Plan" and that the book called The Fugu Plan has gone too far in creating a popular myth in the public's consciousness. I think that is well established now. The article, certainly in its original form, only reinforced the popular myth.

My feeling is that either we document that popular myth, e.g. the Tokayer book, why it was written, what it acheived etc; or we document the nature and events surrounding both Jewish settlement in the Far East under Japan and/or Showa Japan's relationship with the Zionist project - which is really what the book was pointing towards but not quite addressing the complexity of the issue.

I offer this as 'concept in progress' if you understand what I mean. Thank you --Aho-ono (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think something like Jewish settlement in Imperial Japan may be the best we can do in terms of alluding to what the article is really about, i.e. this particular category of events and developments. "Imperial Japan", i.e. "the Japanese Empire" includes the occupied territories and indicates a smaller and more precise time period than Showa Japan. While "Imperial Japan" really includes the time back to the Meiji period, it is generally quite strongly associated with the 1930s-40s. By contrast, "Showa Japan" extends from 1926 to 1989, incorporating a great many political & historical shifts and events; furthermore, "Showa" has a connotation among Japanese and scholars of Japan of the early post-war decades, or of the wider pre-war + WWII + post-war period, and not the connotation of specifically the 1930s-40s as this article's title ought to indicate. Thanks for your efforts. LordAmeth (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jewish settlement in Imperial Japan. Dekimasuよ! 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Removal of uncited material as O.R.[edit]

The following para. was removed from the article on February 4th, 2011, by user:178.22.35.13 as an uncited O.R. violation. The material is being parked here pending verification/citation sourcing. I do not know if any of it is covered by the Maruyama citation in the next paragraph. Interestingly, shortly after this IP user removed this material, the IP was permanently banned from WP for sockpuppetry. 03:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC) HarryZilber (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Japan's support of Zionism
From the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and WWII, Japan's government endorsed the Zionist project and demonstrated a keen interest in Zionist forms of settler colonialism for Japan's own colonial projects in Korea and Manchuria. Not unrelated to Japan's alliance with the British, its authorities sanctioned the idea of establishing a Jewish state in the Palestine seeking endorsement for its claims to former German colonies in East Asia.
Hello, Aho-ono, LordAmeth & others
You should all verified what is concerned Japan’s policy toward the Jewish people through the documents in Japanese.
1) In 1938, the Foreign Minister Konoe has set a telegraph which is as following :「猶太避難民ノ入國ニ関する件」というもので、「我盟邦ノ排斥二因リ外国ニ避難セントスル者ヲ我國ニ於テ許容スルコトハ大局上面白カラサルノミナラス現在事変下ニ在ル我國ノ実情ハ外國避難民ヲ収容スルノ余地ナキヲ以テ此種避難民（外部二対対シテハ単ニ『避難民』ノ名義トスルコト、実際ハ猶太人避難民ヲ意味ス）ノ本邦内地並ニ各種植民地ヘノ入国ハ好マシカラス」（7th October）。This telegraph orders all the ambassadors and consuls to limit severly Jewish refugees to enter Japan. The Japanese government NEVER supported the Zionism between two World Wars. Japanese are well aware of the double-dealing tactics made by Japanese Foreign Minister.
2) 20,000 Jewish refugees NEVER rushed to the frontier between Soviet Union and Manturia. Please read this book :早坂隆『指揮官の決断　満州とアッツの将軍　樋口季一郎』文春新書、2010年　ISBN 978-4-16-660758-7. The number of 20,000 is the false one fabricated by an editor when the memoir of General Kiichiro Higuchi was published in 1971. Exist no witness, no documents all over the world. All the Japanes scholars and journalists don’t believe it. The indication by Asahi Shinbun is NOT true AT ALL.Tizizano (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“The Stenographic Records of Japanese Imperial Congress : The era Showa No.75”（Tokyo University Press ; ISBN 413096075X）indicates us that is“over 80, under 100” the total number of the Jewish refugees have passed the frontier between Soviet-Union and Manturia from 1938 till 1939. Everbody who can read Japanese would be able to see it to verify the historical reality. It is always available through Amazon, for example. The number of 20,000 is the fabricated one in the military fiction intitled : “Ryuhyo no umi （Sea of drift ices）”which is also avaibable : ISBN 476982033X.Tizizano (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Reliability of Hillel Levine's "In Search of Sugihara"[edit]

User:Tizizano, who is also involved in the preceding item above, has objected to the inclusion of Levine, Hillel. (1996). "In Search of Sugihara", and removed it as well as another citation from the bibliography of this article a few days ago, with a blank Edit Summary. I reverted its deletion and am now including this reference to a lengthy Reliable Source Notice Board discussion on the topic of this book which is highly relevant to the article: Is Hillel Levine's Biography of Chiune Sugihara a reliable source?.

A quick skimming of the notice board discussion did not reveal any consensus that the book could not be considered a reliable source. In the notice board discussion User:Tizizano was counseled a number of times that if other reliable sources contradict Levine's, those sources can be included and the article could be edited to reflect contrary information; however as far as I can see there was no consensus that Levine's book was unreliable. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, HarryZilber ! I think those who has no knowledge concerning Japanese language, history and culture would not be merited to discuss about this matter. Don’t you know that Hillel Levine cannot read Japanese ? Do you imagine a Shakespearan scholar that cannot read English ? I had alredy posed you TWO questions as you see above. In attending your reply to what is concerned my TWO objections above, Tizizano (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already written to you ONE MONTH AGO !!

1) In 1938, the Foreign Minister Konoe has set a telegraph which is as following :「猶太避難民ノ入國ニ関する件」というもので、「我盟邦ノ排斥二因リ外国ニ避難セントスル者ヲ我國ニ於テ許容スルコトハ大局上面白カラサルノミナラス現在事変下ニ在ル我國ノ実情ハ外國避難民ヲ収容スルノ余地ナキヲ以テ此種避難民（外部二対対シテハ単ニ『避難民』ノ名義トスルコト、実際ハ猶太人避難民ヲ意味ス）ノ本邦内地並ニ各種植民地ヘノ入国ハ好マシカラス」（7th October）。This telegraph orders all the ambassadors and consuls to limit severly Jewish refugees to enter Japan. The Japanese government NEVER supported the Zionism between two World Wars. Japanese are well aware of the double-dealing tactics made by Japanese Foreign Minister.2) 20,000 Jewish refugees NEVER rushed to the frontier between Soviet Union and Manturia. Please read this book :早坂隆『指揮官の決断　満州とアッツの将軍　樋口季一郎』文春新書、2010年　ISBN 978-4-16-660758-7. The number of 20,000 is the false one fabricated by an editor when the memoir of General Kiichiro Higuchi was published in 1971. Exist no witness, no documents all over the world. All the Japanes scholars and journalists don’t believe it. The indication by Asahi Shinbun is NOT true AT ALL. And I have already indicated it by fax to Asahi Shinbun.Tizizano (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by this discussion. First of all, I do not see any attribution to Levine which is challenged--in fact he does not appear in any of the notes. 2. It is irrelevant if Levine reads Japanese, rather do we have any references which charge his book to be unreliable? 3. It should be obvious that one does not need to read to know the Japanese language to discuss the issue. The Levine book obviously should be included in a bibliog, particularly when there is a paucity of books about the subject in English. Finally, quotes from Japanese documents in a discussion are not very useful and without a translation from by a citable source are clearly OR.Joel Mc (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Joel Mc !

I’m a little surprised those who cannot read Japanese write such kind of article : Jewish settlement in Imperial JAPAN. Japanese language has already been used in the notes 16 & 17 as you see below :

Note 16 ^ "Question 戦前の日本における対ユダヤ人政策の基本をなしたと言われる「ユダヤ人対策要綱」に関する史料はありますか。また、同要綱に関する説明文はありますか。". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/annai/honsho/shiryo/qa/senzen_03.html. Retrieved 2010-10-02. Note 17 ^ "猶太人対策要綱". Five ministers council. Japan Center for Asian Histrical Record. 1938-12-06. p. 36/42. http://www.jacar.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?IS_STYLE=default&ID=M2006092115064531921. Retrieved 2010-10-02.

  1. ^ Tokayer, p220.

Bibliography Inuzuka Kiyoko, "Kaigun Inuzuka kikan no kiroku: Yudaya mondai to Nippon no kōsaku" (Tokyo: Nihon kōgyō shimbunsha, 1982). Kase Hideaki, "Nihon no naka no Yudayajin".

Who has chosen such sort of vulgar and non-academic resources ?

Sugita Rokuichi, Higashi Ajia e kita Yudayajin".

It’s good but obsolete and not available.

Concerning the Levine’s book, the reference books should not be decided exclusively because of the paucity of English resources, I think.Tizizano (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead is completely disassociated from the article. It says the whole thing is a fiction, but that is not supported by the text, except for the ambiguous 'as interpreted by' in the opening line of the first section. I'm removing all mention in the lead of this being fictionalized unless the text is modified to support it. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the lead is a separate article. It was a book report of The Fugu Plan. The text of the article is an account of the historical events. These are two different topics. The lead should be a final section, "Popular accounts" or some such.

Also, the article (and now the final section) started with a doozy of a non sequitur. Do they actually claim that it was called the "Fugu Plan" in Japanese, or was that just a label they invented for it in English, to better sell their book? Do they actually claim there was a Japanese plan for a Jewish state? Also, there are other popular accounts, which do not make such a claim.

— kwami (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish settlement in the Japanese Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish settlement in the Japanese Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_settlement_in_the_Japanese_Empire&oldid=1207822719"