Talk:Yasukuni Shrine

"This controversy exploded openly in 1978, when the remains of 1,068 convicted war criminals were secretly moved there. Among these were 13 notorious Class A war criminals, including Hideki Tojo."

Firstly, enshrining involve no remains. All you need is names to be written down and kept in the shrine. Secondly, POW executed for war crimes being enshrined was never been secret. And also I should add that it was not a political issue. The controversy errupted when it was revealed that A class war criminal such as the prime minster Tojo who did not engaged in combat were enshried in secret as "Showa Martyer". FWBOarticle 23:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've seen conflicting information on this: the souls of all of Japan's war dead (good, bad and indifferent) are definitely enshrined on paper, but some sources also appear to claim that the physical bones remains of infamous class A guys are also there. Anybody have an authoritative source? Jpatokal 11:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Japanese practice is cremation not burial.

Some bones are left over after cremation, as anybody who has been to a Japanese funeral will know... <squick> Jpatokal 05:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not so sure that shinto enshrining involve body parts. The reason (excuse) for including executed war criminals (POW) was that they all turned up in war dead registery. So Yasukuni copied all of their name in their book and kept it in alter. I'm not sure what is shinto's view about body part. For what I know, death would be regarded as filth in shinto but Yasukuni may be different due to it's uniquely political origin. Anyway, if it is true, I would be news to me. Feel free to include it if you can find credible reference. The original article implied that all of 1008 executed war criminal's boy parts are kept, which can't be true. FWBOarticle 22:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That IS a political issue IMO, because Japanese goverment decided that those war criminals are innocent (wrongly accused) before their name tags were put into the shrine. -miorea

Restoring the government ownership of Yasukuni is not on political agenda. The debate is about appropriateness of government official to pay visit to religious institution. Also, I have clarify that it was act of donation of public fund which was deemed unconstitutional.

I have changed the writing 'Court ruled'. If you check the Fukuoka court's verdict, you can understand that 'unconstitutional' is not the statement as a court, but just a personal opinion of the judge, and not related to the case itself. Juristically, the judge's opinion means nothing. Poo-T 11 Aug 2004

German controversy

Paragraph removed:

A similar controversy occured in Germany, where US President Ronald Reagan and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl drew criticism from Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and others in 1985 when they attended a wreath-laying ceremony at the Bitburg cemetery, gravesite of 2,000 German soldiers, including 49 Nazi members of Hitlers SS. Similiar visits to any of the many decentralized Nazi cemeteries have not been repeated since, and in 2003 a private campaign of the German Federation of Expellees to create a centralized religious shrine honoring Nazi war criminals, the Centre Against Expulsions, failed to get the backing of the government.

If this is made into its own article then maybe it deserves a "See also", but as it stands it's pretty irrelevant. Jpatokal 14:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This removed paragraph actually points to a very interesting contrast between Japanese and German attitutes toward their respective military history. Just try and imagine the world reaction, if:

       German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder were to visit a shrine honoring Adolf Hitler and other Nazi war criminals.

NPOV?

The article as it stands now has (IMHO) a fair bit of anti-Japanese slant, but the esteemed Mr. 69.193.248.4's edits went a bit overboard in correcting them. More measured attempts would be welcome. Jpatokal 07:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the last iteration of the topic edited by Jpatokal is well-written and a major improvement on previous articles. I see that 69.193.248.4's complete removal of the 'controversy' section is over the top - to deny that the shrine is controversial is to close to your eyes to the facts. On a linked issue, I think that 69.19.248.4 should get him or herself a user name if he/she would like to make large scale edits to this page - I think this would be the most polite and effective way to proceed if we are to agree how we can improve the Yasukuni Shrine page. I have reinstated the 'controversy' section in Jpatokal's last edit. Nick Fraser 12:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shrine Visits

You have mentioned the shrine visits, but not the reasons. Many people visit the shrine as an act of remembrance, not an act of reverence. Prime Minister Koizumi has publicly stated that he visits the Shrine so that there will be no more wars.

then why don't they remove the war criminals to another place? after that they can visit it whenever they want to and no neighbours would protest anymore. if germany worshiped hitler among millions of war dead, how would israel and the whole europe react? no less furious than korea and china right now i suppose. cultural differences doesn't necessarily say you are justified to hurt your neighbours, especially when the very ones you're worshipping killed millions of their grandfathers.--Wooddoo-eng 09:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I’m not sure who you mean by “they”, but if you are talking about public officials, the answer is simple: they can’t. Remember, Yasukuni Shrine is now a purely private organization. As an independent religious institution, It has a complete discretion to decide what it enshrines. Removing the war criminals from Yasukini Shrine is clearly beyond the government's reach. No matter how foreign countries demand to do so, it’s simply impossible. If the Japanese government should ask (or suggest) Yasukuni Shrine to change its kami, it is undoubtedly unconstitutional. After all, the freedom of religion is constitutionally protected in Japan, unlike some authoritarian countries. --World3 22 Apr 2005

Those who voice out the removal of war criminals from the shrine is not thinking rationally, really, because the dead needs a resting place. However, visiting the shrine from the living is another matter. No one is going to disagree if you visit the shrine when you have some relatives resting in it, but for the others? It depends. In neighbouring countries like Korea and China, no one is oppose to the rememberance of the dead, what they oppose is, the choice to visit Yasukuni Shrine, intead of others. There's one and only one major difference of Yasukuni Shrine from the others: The Class-A war criminals inside. If one only want to visit the grave(s) of Japanese troops(including those from World War II) as an act of rememberance, there are numberous other shrines which can serves the function. Why choose Yasukuni Shrine? Why not the others? Does that mean the worshipping of those Class-A criminals? --Hunter 12:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They choose to visit Yasukuni Shrine because that is the only choice. There is no such place as “the others.” If someone is going to offer prayer for those who died for the war, Yasukuni is the only place to go. The historical evaluation of the war is one thing. Expressing one’s respect for the soldiers is another. In US, different people have different opinions on Vietnam War, but no one is against expressing their respect for the soldiers who died for it. The same logic should apply to the case in Japan. Some people suggest that the Japanese government should establish a secular government institution for the remembrance of the war dead. Personally I think it would be better. However, this idea is extremely unpopular in Japan. It is criticized not only from the right wing but also from the left wing. So currently and at lease in the near future, Yasukuni is the only place Japanese people can express their respect for the soldiers. They go to Yasukini not to worship the Class-A guys. They go to express their respect for a lot of nameless soldiers who lost their life for the war. --World3 23 Apr 2005

It's exchanges like these that make me wonder whether it's possible to write an unbiased account of Yasukuni shrine. Both the original anonymous post that ingenuously states that 'Prime Minister Koizumi has publicly stated that he visits the Shrine so that there will be no more wars' (given the huge controversy his visits stir up in countries invaded by Japan, it's hard to see how Koizumi can say this with a straight face) and Wooddoo-eng's response, which takes a completely partisan attitude (do you think the Japanese wouldn't have moved the war criminals earlier if it was politically possible?) demonstrate the futility of trying to talk rationally about the issue.

Bathrobe 31 Mar 2005

For your info:

Nations that have worshiped officially and Nations that are opposite officially

Kadzuwo 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Date of enshrining

Based on the Japanese version, the Class A guys were given the Martyrs of Showa title in 1978 and this became public knowledge in 1979. I've updated the article accordingly. Jpatokal 02:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Koreans and Taiwanese

According to the Japanese Wikipedia article on Yasukuni Shrine, 日本のためにともに戦った台湾・韓国人元軍人軍属も多数祀(まつ)られている。

In the English version, it says: "it also serves to honor soldiers born in colonized Korea and Taiwan (Korean and Taiwanese soldiers fought and died for Japan are not enshrined."

Which is correct?

Bathrobe

something not true

To date, China has been the most vocal critic of the shrine, but because the issue of Yasukuni is heavily tied to Chinese politics and viewed through a ‘filtered media’, most people in China are unaware that the shrine existed prior to World War II, or that it also serves to honor soldiers born in colonized Korea and Taiwan (Korean and Taiwanese soldiers fought and died for Japan are not enshrined).

i don't know who wrote this but it's partly not true. i'm from beijing, and i know (at least more than the one who wrote this) most people in China are aware that the shrine also serves to honor the war-dead. the chinese people are simply furious because the war criminals are worshipped there too. no one would have any complaints anymore with the visits if they remove the criminals to another place. just because the communists controll china's media doesn't mean japan's worshipping the murderers and whitewashing their history textbooks is justifiable. this is simply illogical. please make some changes to this part. he/she who wrote this didn't provide any proof that the chinese people really don't know something about the shrine. it's just his/her assumption.--Wooddoo-eng 09:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ever been to one of those Buddhist temples where they wish blessings and enlightenment for every sentient creature? That includes Hitler, Mao and Hirohito too. I think the special Martyrs of Showa designation for the war criminals is much more questionable... Jpatokal 10:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many war memorials all over Asia. Why is only the Yasukuni that comes under so much fire? There must be a reason and rationale behind. Please understand it before throwing about laughable comments. --Plastictv 01:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I originally deleted the disputed statement. I then came across a Chinese friend who earnestly felt that the Japanese PM should not visit a shrine devoted to war criminals. I told him that it was not devoted to war criminals, most are common soldiers. He had never heard this, despite obviously being acquainted with the issue from the Chinese media. I reinstated the statement because it seems to be true, to some extent, at least. The concept that this is 'something not true' is simply incorrect. However, someone without a user name immediately deleted the reference. The article now has a clear anti-Japanese bias. This may be satisfactory in the view of many Chinese (and Koreans), but it is not satisfactory from a POV viewpoint.

The Chinese media DO say the shrine also worship the war-dead for heaven's sake! "Something not true" means "most people in China don't know this " is wrong. The problem focuses on the word "MOST." --Wooddoo-eng 10:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

TALKING about "filtered media". Look at this Japanese example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1736208,00.html But Mr Koizumi's public statement of regret today stopped short of offering the unambiguous apology demanded by China and British POW groups. And an edited version of the statement, issued for use inside Japan, cut out still more of the contrite language. ...Mr Koizumi's public statement, which was subsequently edited for domestic audiences, echoed the form of words used by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama to mark the 50th anniversary of the surrender.

Kanji: 国 vs 國

The esteemed 211.57.235.249 is, for once, correct: the name of the shrine is 靖國神社. 国 is indeed the modern kanji for "land/country", but 國 is one of the designated kanji allowed in names. Jpatokal 02:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then why is the Japanese article titled 靖国神社？ A Google search of 靖國神社 revealed primarily Chinese webpages. I tried accessing the site's official site but it appears to be down/unresponsive. --Feitclub 04:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

According to Google's cache [1] the official site uses 靖國神社, and searching for that string gets me only Japanese sites. 靖国神社 is not "wrong", but in my opinion it's less correct...

I've asked for opinions on the Japanese talk page. Jpatokal 08:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read that, and I see responses but I don't know enough Japanese to understand them ^_^ --Feitclub 20:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

正確に言えば、どちらも正しくないように思えます。公式には「靖」の字も、PCでは一般的に表記できない旧字が用いられているからです。また、靖国神社の公式サイト内でも、本文の記述は「靖国神社」で統一されており、ウィキペディアの記述的には「国」であっても誤りではないと思われます。--Tukasa ryo 2005年4月6日 (水) 09:53 (UTC)

My attempt at a translation: "Frankly I think neither is correct. The 「靖」character of the official name can not be displayed correctly on many browsers. In addition, the 「国」character is also used in the content of the official site, so for the Wikipedia I do not think that using 「国」is incorrect." Jpatokal 02:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the best compromise would be list both forms? Jpatokal 02:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good so long as someone offers an explanation. I just tried to explain the whole thing to a Japanese friend of mine and he had no idea what I was talking about. He only knows the 国 spelling. --Feitclub 02:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"國" is kyuji (旧字), or old character that was used before 1949. "国" is the modern simplified version of it. Yasukuni was established much earlier than 1949 and so were written "靖國" back then. But since the government introduced the new sets of kanji they have been written "靖国" in most Japanese documents. Japanese dictionary entry of the shrine also is "靖国神社." Hermeneus 10:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent information, thanks so much for your help. I will integrate this into the article for clarity. --feitclub 20:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural differences

"it is not unknown for a body to be exhumed from the grave to be punished for transgressions during life"

This was in the article at one point. Can someone explain it, verify it, or put it into context? Thanks, Sam Spade 15:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese War I

Thanks for pointing it out. The first Sino-Japanese War was actually an invasion of Korea *AND* China. The first stage of the war was fought on Korea soil between Japanese army and Chinese army for the control of the Korean political system. After Chinese army was driven out of the Choson peninsula, Japanese army moved on to invade China. The Imperial Japanese Army occupied ShanDong peninsula and LiaoDong penisula after the Japanese navy eliminated the BeiYang fleet of China. During the invasion Japanese army committed the holocast of 18,000 people in Lüshunkou city (often called Port Arthur), leaving only 36 alive to dig graves for the dead.

It is under debate that whether the invasion of China was planned by the Emperor and the cabinet or mainly driven by the generals near the frontline. But whatever it was, no historian would deny that it was an invasion, an unjustified and anti-humanity war fought for nothing but the greediness of human beings. If you look closely to the Kamis enshrined in Yasukuni Jinja, most of them (more than 99%) died in such invasions (all but the first two civil wars). I would argue that this is the very reason why Eastern Asian, particularly Chinese and Korean has been critic about the Yasukuni Jinja. To worship fighters died in such wars make people believe that there's a little more than just patriotism -- as Japanese goverment claims -- in there, which may likely be Militarism.

I like the last sentence of this wikipedia entry "Why keep blaming the dead for the crimes they committed when they were alive?" That's a very positive thinking. However I feel it's unfair for Japanese to only remember the glory past of their nation; and omit all its dirty deeds. --Miorea 21:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

I think because the controversy section speaks of China's objections to the visit in an attempt at objectivism the article should also mention the visit by the Taiwan Solidarity Union and the Peasant Party (Taiwan) to the shrine. (24.124.61.165 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC))

State Shinto

Yasukuni is not a traditional Japanese shrine; it was established as part of State Shinto and its original purpose was inextricably tied to that of State Shinto, i.e., Emperor worship (the Emperor as a god) and its whole apparatus. Those who are enshrined here are here under the idea that a soldier who died for the Emperor became a god. With the separation of state and religion after the war, and the Emperor's renunciation of divine status, all this theoretically came to an end, but it could be argued that the shrine cannot be understood without looking at its historical roots. In fact, part of the problem of the shrine is that it seems to represent 'unreconstructed State Shinto' and everything it stands for. The people who are enshrined here are still gods (although, incongruously, the significance of dying for the Emperor was negated when the Emperor renounced his status as a 'living god'). Does anyone feel that the introduction could be slightly rewritten to include some of this historical background? And should the Shintoist beliefs of the priests of the shrine be spelt out (if that is possible), including some indication as to what their beliefs reflect - primitive Shinto? State Shinto? Something else again?

Bathrobe 2 June 2005

There's an interesting article in the journal "Japan Echo", December 2004, on Yasukuni. It discusses the rationale for the founding of the shrine and traditional views that make the shrine meaningful to some.

evasion

"Why keep blaming the dead for the crimes they committed when they were alive?"

It's not the dead China and Korea keep blaming the most, it's the living officials who worship them. This remark by Koizumi is simply trying to distract attention. It's not the existence of these war criminals that makes Japan's neighbours angry. It's the fact that elected Japanese officials worship them that's under fire. When did China and Korea ever criticize ordinary Japanese for visiting the shrine? --Wooddoo-eng 10:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

-Think about this analogy if German Chancellor were to say "Why keep blaming Adolf Hitler and other now-dead Nazis for the holocaust they committed when they were alive?"

-It is Japanese government's own doing that leads to the widespread resentment: Read this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1735665,00.html Former Australian prisoners of war returned to the Thai jungles where they laboured on the notorious Death Railway. “I can accept the fact that the young generation of Japanese is not to blame. It was their fathers and grandfathers. But until they own up, they’ll always be a pariah nation,” said Baden Jones, 84, who was honouring comrades in Kanchanaburi.

A good source of info on Yasukuni's history and doctrine is a series of three articles published a few months ago by Yomiuri entitled "Behind the Torii.' Unfortunately they've taken them offline, but I have some excerpts on my blog here. http://www.mutantfrog.com/2005/06/13/yasukuni-behind-the-torii/ Stupidly I didn't save the entire article, forgetting that Yomiuri doesn't have an online archive.

Sourcing

I made a recent edit that attempted to clarify, tighten, and in a number of places adopt a more neutral form of language. Better use of citations and external sources would really help towards the improvement of this article, particularly on a number of the quotes and events mentioned; I left a number of notes to this effect with HTML comments, which hopefully other editors can make use of. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 11:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)