Talk:Japanese war crimes

Archives
Nov 2004—Jan 2006 Feb 2006—Oct 2006 Oct 2006-Feb 2007

first off, fuck every historian in the world. i hope you all burn in hell. and that your dad rapes you and you get your leg cut off by your wife who leaves you to bleed to death. fuck you all. that is all

148 convicted criminals?

This section is wrong. I checked the actual book in question, and it says there 5,700 individuals indicted for Class B and Class C war crimes, including 178 Taiwanese and 148 Koreans. So the 148 number wasn't the total number of conviincted individuals, but just the number of ethnic Koreans in the entire group of convicted war criminals. Hong Sa Ik was the highest ranking ethnic Korean war criminal, not the highest ranking convicted war criminal in general, which include the 25 Class A war crminals. Here's the actual page, shown courtesy of Google Books. [1] (Embracing defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II By John W Dower, pg. 447) Therefore, I'm fixing the numbers to reflect this. Also, while looking at the 148 number, I also found an interesting sidefact, which I also included.--Yuje 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. That's the kind of edit that really improves an article. Cla68 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism etc

I believe more information needs to be devoted to revisionism in Japan and reaction from allied nations. I don't think the current issue is whether Japan has apologized or not, because they had numerous times. I think the main thing is not about the apologies, but about all kinds of things that keeps popping up like revisionism and textbook controversy, plus Abe's recent denial that comfort women were forced. It's these incidents by high profile politicians that anger Japan's neighbors, not the "lack" of apologies. Blueshirts 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Immediate Compensation?

The property listed in China were all looted goods from China. Can a robber uses the robbed goods as compensation? This is incredible. Redcloud822 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'No Reference' tag added for the 'Background' section

Origins and the so called 'culture' of Japanese imperialism is no more than personal pragmatic speculation at this moment without any reference to secondary material. Hence the tag will remain until those opinions could be cited through a legitimate endnote. 203.109.234.135 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In some cases 203.109, you have added "citation needed" tags to material where the source is already mentioned in the text or where the citation is in an adjoining sentence. In other cases you have added them in sentences which follow logically from preceding statements, without putting them at the point where the controversy arises. In others you have put them at statements of the obvious. I will clean all of these up in due course. Grant | Talk 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll ever understand your "follow logically" argument. Sounds a lot like WP:Original research - meaning you as a WP editor is making a conclusion based on the evidence we have, instead of simply reflecting the sources we have. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First, if a sentence says, in essence, that "A = 3", the following sentence says "B = 2", the one after that says "A + B = C" then it follows logically if the fourth sentence says "C = 5". The last sentence is not the point that references should be given or requested.

Second, Wikipedia does not have a rule that says every sentence or even every paragraph has to be referenced.

Third, requests for references can be mischevious and ways of pushing a particular POV or ideology. Grant | Talk 08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gtant65 I had a look for the citations requested and under WP:V I do not think that they are unreasonable. For example:

• For example, many of the alleged crimes committed by Japanese personnel broke Japanese military law, and were not subject to court martial, as required by that law.(citation requested) It is a contentious statement of fact with no citation to back it up.
• Had Japan certified the legal validity of the war crimes tribunals in the San Francisco Treaty, the war crimes would have became open to appeal and overturning in Japanese courts. This would have been unacceptable in international diplomatic circles.(citation requested) This definatly needs a citation and as I doubt it was made up it should be easy to fid.

The others are in a similar vain and should have citations. But I do no think that the "Unreferenced template" on the background section should be used, but there should be some "fact" templates on things like:

• By the late 1930s, the rise of militarism in Japan created at least superficial similarities between the wider Japanese military culture and that of Nazi Germany's elite military personnel, such as those in the Waffen-SS. Japan also had a military secret police force, known as the Kempeitai, which resembled the Nazi Gestapo in its role in annexed and occupied countries. Because it is guilt by comparrison and so contentious. Besides it is arguable if Germany's elite military personnel were in the SS, See for example the attitude of Dietrich von Saucken an aristocratic Prussian conservative and a member of the military class who were probably the real elite military of Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I wasn't referring to the examples you have given, not that I think any of them are really that controversial, although they may appear so to some people.

Most of the material in question — and in fact most of the article — was actually added by User:FWBOarticle (under another user name, which he has changed for privacy reasons), who I understand to be a Japanese person living in Japan. He and I have had some serious disagreements rearding various articles, mostly to do with his and my quite different historiographical approaches. But I also believe that he has an excellent knowledge of this subject, from Japanese sources which are inaccessible to most of us. I have suggested to him that references would be a great addition, but he has never provided them.

And one reason for my objections stated above is the use of {cn} tags as an insidious form of POV-pushing and political censorship. There are people who use them to justify deletion of facts that they fund unpalatable. I think most of the frequent contribuors to these article would agree with me. I do not think the lack of references, is a good enough reason for the removal of long-standing material, against the wishes of most editors. Grant | Talk 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This year there has been a lot of editing of the Battle of Waterloo one of the things that has happened is that there has been a tendency to ask for and to reference everything. I think if you compare two versions of the article from say 31 December 2006 and now, you will see that thanks to footnoting the article is of far more use as an encyclopaedic source than it was before, although the content of what is said has not altered a lot. I have also found that citations help greatly with controversial topics e.g. Bombing of Dresden in keeping the article focused and removing the more extreme theories. So I would recommend that on a subject like this there should be rather more citations than there are at the moment. Don't look on the request for citations as POV pushing but a chance to copper bottom what is already here. In the long run the article will be much better for it, although in the short term it is a pain to find them. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comfort Women

I have removed the following reference from the "comfort women" section for it's lack of citation and use of weasel-words: "Some sources claim that virtually all comfort women consented to becoming prostitutes and/or were paid, but others have presented research establishing a link between the Japanese military and the forced recruitment of local women."

I didn't feel it was appropriate to simply tag it and leave it, as this is a massively controversial topic with a lot of bad feeling behind it. Based on that possibility for real harm being done, I think it should be held to a higher standard (on the level of WP:BIO, for example) in terms of the absolute essentiality of good citation. I was in doubt, and I took it out. If the claim has any truth it can simply be cited, de-weaseled, and returned to the article. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

why is this quote given in full twice?

• These were not commercial brothels. Force, explicit and implicit, was used in recruiting these women. What went on in them was serial rape, not prostitution. The Japanese Army’s involvement is documented in the government’s own defense files. A senior Tokyo official more or less apologized for this horrific crime in 1993. [...] Yesterday, [Abe] grudgingly acknowledged the 1993 quasi apology, but only as part of a pre-emptive declaration that his government would reject the call, now pending in the United States Congress, for an official apology. America isn’t the only country interested in seeing Japan belatedly accept full responsibility. Korea and China are also infuriated by years of Japanese equivocations over the issue.

Surely its unecessary to use it twice in the same article?--Jackyd101 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend changing the text "regard themselves as having been sexually assaulted and/or sex slaves" be changed to "claim to have been sexually assaulted and/or sex slaves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.167.175 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Doesn't that definitive distinction warrant the separation and disposal of acts that are crimes against humanity and not war crimes from this article? you would assume that to be absurd. From Artile 6 of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity form a consolidated framework that under Artile 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the ambit of jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”.

Grant65, you implied that the inclusion of Iraq related material is "grossly trivilising" to the material related to the Pacific War. However, one can reasonably construe that you are trivialising the Iraq material itself. I do not think you understand the gravity of Japan's leaders supporting the invasion. This is a nation that has had leaders convicted of crimes against peace and has duly accepted those judgments under Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty . I can only sincerely hope that all of you take due caution in editing and deleting of forthcoming additions to the article with regards to Iraq and convictions of the past.

Deganw23 01:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this has made a reappearance after it was archived, but I take the opportunity to point out once again that — in spite of my initial concerns — I ended up arguing for inclusion of the material relating to the Iraq War. See my post from November 13, 2005 above. User:Jeff Watts (JW) disagreed, as did another editor. Grant | Talk 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, that proposal was never revisited for one and a half years so that's moot (nobody including User:Jeff Watts even bothered to create a rediret link for that "Imperial Japanese war crimes" title to this page since). Hence, the reasonable wiki-browser would be led to believe from the current title that the article could theoretically encompass any war crime in any period between the formation of the Yamato state in the antiquities to contemporary Japan. Kilimanjaronum 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can create a redirect. I repeat: I am not opposed to discussion of the Iraq War controversy in this article. But I think other editors will need to be persuaded. Grant | Talk 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans may consider "Japanese war crimes" to be events that occurred in 1941-45"

Under the "Historical and geographical extent" heading:

By comparison, the Western Allies did not come into military conflict with Japan until 1941, and North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans may consider "Japanese war crimes" to be events that occurred in 1941-45.

Is this not a presumption and a deductive fallacy, and is "may consider" not weasel wording? I have checked the sources cited and have found nothing in them to support this claim. On the contrary, the sources cited clearly contradict it.

"North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans?" That's a lot of people! This looks like a not-so-tactful way of saying "gaijin."

This comment amasses hundreds of millions of people, from dozens of countries and countless cultures all over the globe, into one big homogenous group...

...and then projects a straaangely insular psychology onto that group.

Now, I wonder how that could have happened?

I reccomend that this text be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.167.175 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-26T04:45:21 (UTC)

oh, here's my four tildes: 64.81.167.175 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. A "presumption" yes, because its a reasonable and perfectly encyclopedic presumption. A "deductive fallacy", no because it's inductive and not a fallacy. "May consider" is not a weasel phrase; you are mistaking the cautious use of words for the misleading use of them.

You are the first person to suggest the removal of this wording, which is simply pointing out the historical differences between (A) Taiwan and Korea, (B) mainland China and (C) the rest of the world (worded as "North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans", because there can't have been many Latin Americans or Africans who were affected, even though there are rather a lot of them). Others have suggested that the article should be restricted to 1941-45. I don't agree with that either.Grant | Talk 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, inductive, thanks to the word "may." 'Thousand pardons. However I have to insist that this is a fallacy, a fallacy of weak induction, a fallacy of "false cause," if you like. It's inferring a conclusion that is not supported by the premise.

Like this:

Japanese Imperial forces committed horrific acts against entire populations, acts which are well known to the entire world, but...

since:

certain populations were not directly at war with Japan until after many of the most notorious atrocities took place, including the massacre of Nanjing,

it naturally follows that:

descendants of those certain populations "may" have no consideration for, or knowledge of, such globally acknowledged horrors. (amazingly!)

It is a serious leap of faith, and I have to respectfully disagree; it is hardly encyclopedic or reasonable.

But whether we agree on that point or not, your response did not address the other serious matter: the fact that the sources cited for this claim do not support the claim; in fact, they contradict it quite clearly. That is hardly encyclopedic.

Without any sources to support such a feeble induction, what place does it have in an encyclopedia? "May have" puts the assertion on shaky ground to begin with, such that it would require a solid basis of circumstantial evidence to warrant mention. No such evidence is provided. In this manner, we "may" assume anything. That's our right to do so, I suppose, but printing such assumptions in an encyclopedia is hardly justified.

Not yet mentioned is the fact that the assumption being made in this passage is one about people's thoughts. That is a broad assumption, and without some kind of data to back it up, interviews, surveys, letters to editors, something, it amounts to mind-reading, and mind-reading on a massive scale, for that matter. I'm unaware if psychics are considered legitimate encyclopedic sources these days, but that's irrelevant since none were cited in this case.

I'll admit, I do have a bit of a passionate stake in this, because the passage I'm contesting seems to suggest that either the enormous group mentioned (Australasians, etc.), or people in general, are so daft and self-centered as to be incapable of comprehending anything that doesn't involve them directly (in this case, human suffering on a catastrophic scale). So I do find it offensive.

Nevertheless, pathos aside, I'm unconvinced that my argument is anything less than solid. I still feel that the passage is irrelevant and inappropriate, that the premise does not support the conclusion, that the sources cited contradict the claim rather than support it, and without sufficient support for the claim, its presence in this article is awkward at best, and, well, forgive me, but revisionist at worst.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Utterly wrong. Would Grant like to add anything, or does anyone else have anything to say? (forgot my tildes again; sorry) 64.81.167.175 09:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "amazingly" is supposed to be sarcastic, but if it is, it proves that the statements in question are so obvious and logical as to warrant no further discussion or referencing. In which case; Q.E.D.

As far as the issue of "people's thoughts" is concerned, the statement is not a precise and definite assertion — I refer you to that word "may" — about the thoughts of any person or any group of people, so it is not "mind reading".

Let me try this again: we are dealing with a cautious statement, a simple qualified statement of logic which hinges on the word "may". Some very intelligent and well-educated people are uncomfortable with qualifiers like "may", because they like (or are used to) active/definite statements ("This is X, that is Y."). An insistence that such statements are obligatory suggests what is known as a empiricist and/or positivist philosophy or approach to scholarship. Neither of those is a philosophy to which I adhere; they are not (any longer) the standard approaches to the practice of historical scholarship (of which this article is an example, among other things), they are not official Wikipedia policy, and we cannot assume that they are the philosophy of everyone reading the article. They also do not make qualified statements incorrect or unencyclopedic. Grant | Talk 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I hope no one takes offense.

I understand what you mean about the hedging nature of "may," but to use the "cautiousness" of the word "may" as a license to print in an encyclopedia whatever hunch we conjure up in our imaginations is irresponsible, especially when dealing with such a serious topic.

Here are some not-so-serious examples, because I don't want to cloud the issue with examples of wild inferences about rape, murder, etc:

"Consumption of Coca-Cola is widespread among people of Europe, Australasia, North America, and South-East Asia, therefore, those people may believe that Coca-Cola contains magic healing properties, and that the gods will treat them favorably if they drink it regularly."

"The majority of documented UFO sightings in the U.S. occurred in the 1950s-1960s, therefore, aliens may not like disco, which became popular in the 1970s."

I'm not being sarcastic; the above examples are intended to emphasize my point. Anything's possible. People may think anything. Wild inferences do not suddenly become encyclopedic when stated cautiously. Some people "may" believe that my cautious conjecture about aliens' taste in music is more plausible than a cautious speculation that tens of millions of people "may" collectively disregard the criminal nature of rape, mutilation, torture, enslavement, and massacre of entire populations of civilians, if and when such atrocities are inflicted on people of another skin color, nationality, or continent of residence. That is the meaning implied here. It is the unstated premise upon which the "logic" of the assertion is based, and it is a wild and disprovable one. We cannot separate words from their meaning, and it is an acrobatic act of denial to base an argument on lexicogrammaticality while simultaneously ignoring semantic meaning.

Disprovable, too, is the conclusion drawn. We don't have to remain in the gray area of "caution." A body of representative data could easily be produced to support a counter-assertion: that Australasians, Europeans, South-East Asians, and North Americans do, in fact, overwhelmingly recognize the criminality of the massacre of Nanjing, the mass-rape of "comfort women," and other atrocities committed by Japanese Imperial forces before the year 1941.

Conversely, a comparable body of authentic data, or any authentic data at all, which would take this "cautiously stated" inference out of the realm of wild speculation and place it in the domain of logical assumption, "may" be difficult or impossible to produce. The volume of evidence against it will "certainly" overwhelm it.

Speaking of which... The fact that the sources cited do not support the claim, and the fact that the sources cited contradict the claim, still has not been addressed.

I do tend to rattle on, so let me simplify:

1: Please explain how the cautious inference is "logical."

2: Please explain how the sources cited support the "cautious statement."

I'll be offline for a few days, so, until then, best wishes...

Tildetildetildetilde64.81.167.175 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Because of the dates that countries either (a) became part of the Japanese empire or (b) were at war with Japan

2. The sources clearly support the 1941 date for Americans, but I'm assume you are not referring to Americans when you suggest that the sources cited do not support the statement. Please be clear about what you see as the specific problem here. Grant | Talk 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my long absence. There is a world of difference between being at war and recognizing war crimes. To illustrate, we Westerners recognize that atrocities are currently being committed against civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan, yet no Western country is at war with Sudan. We don't need to be at war to recognize war crimes. Likewise, no Western country is at war with the People's Republic of China, nor was any Western country at war with the P.R.C. when Mao's forces invaded Tibet. Nevertheless, atrocities committed by the P.R.C. against Tibetan monks and civilians are widely recognized by Westerners. The Khmer Rouge has not invaded North America, Australasia, or Europe, and in fact, U.S. leaders privately supported the Khmer Rouge, yet the West was quick to condemn their atrocities, and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are names practically synonymous with "war crime" in the psyche of North Americans, Australasians, Europeans, and, of course, South East Asians. When hard-line Serbs carried out "ethnic cleansing" in former Yugoslavia, they did not threaten North Americans, Australasians, or South East Asians, and, with the exception of several hundred thousand non-Serbs who happened to be living in a certain concentrated geographic location, the Serbs did not threaten Europeans, either. Nevertheless, Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, and the same court currently has an international arrest warrant in effect against Ratko Mladic, who is widely regarded as one of the most despicable murderers of the 20th century. All of these examples serve to prove my point that "Nation B" does not need to be invaded by, or at war with, "Nation A" in order for Nation B to recognize Nation A's war crimes. It naturally follows that a citation showing that Nation A went to war with Nation B in year X does not support the contention that one nation only recognizes the crimes of the other committed during or after year X.

Other facts that serve to further erode the likelihood of the statement I am disputing exist in great abundance.

Specifically in regards to the concept of involvement, the U.S. and Britain were providing material aid to Chinese forces before 1941. This was one of the reasons Japanese leaders viewed the U.S. as a military enemy.

Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking has sold over a million copies worldwide and has been published in several languages. The original publication earned Chang an invitation to the White House in Wahington, D.C., she (R.I.P.) gained worldwide acclaim, received several awards and two honorary doctorates, and was memorialized in ceremonies and monuments following her death. In other words, she, and her work, are widely recognized by North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans.

The rape, mutilation, and massacre in Nanjing of hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians, including infants and elderly, occurred in 1937. North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans are well aware of this fact, and widely condemn these monstrosities as war crimes.

North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans also widely recognize the forced sexual slavery of hundreds of thousands of "comfort women" prior to 1941, even if Shinzo Abe does not.

In short, the dates of the beginnings of direct military conflict do not support the statement I am contesting.

Regarding the sources cited: The first, the Craig Symonds article, merely shows the dates of the U.S. war with Japan, therefore it is irrelevant, because, as I have elaborated, the dates of direct military involvement are separate from the recognition of war crimes. The second, the Edward Drea introduction, directly contradicts the statement I am disputing, with the statement: "The atrocities at Nanjing occurred four years before the United States entered the war." First, by using the word "entered," this statement shows recognition that there was already a war going on prior to 1941, and second, this statement recognizes "atrocities at Nanjing" which "occurred four years before the United States entered the war." As for the passage that follows this contradictory statement, regarding the lack of documentation prior to 1945, I trust that it is not being used to suggest a lack of evidence, since it is almost always the case in instances of wartime atrocities that the facts do not become fully known until after the fighting has ceased, as exemplified in a quote from another of the sources cited for this statement which I am disputing, the 59th Session of the U.N. Human Rights Committee: "In August 1945, following the Japanese surrender to Allied Forces, the horrific fate of the Far East prisoners of war was fully discovered." But returning to the chronological order of the citation, from the next source cited, the book review of A History of Japan, 1582-1941, comes another statement that directly contradicts the statement I am disputing: "It was indeed ironic that when Japan thought that it was taking a moral stand, that of liberating Asia from western colonialism in the Second World War, it committed the greatest acts of aggression and the grossest atrocities." I am unable to gain access to the next cited source, volume 64, #2 of Pacific Affairs. Returning to the U.N. document, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for your assistance with this one. It appears to be a legal argument regarding discrimination by the New Zealand government against certain sufferers of internment. Could you please explain how this document supports the statement I'm disputing? Finally, I regret that I have not had time yet to thoroughly read the Reynolds document. At a glance, it appears to be a chronology of the claims made against the Japanese government by former P.O.W.s. Perhaps you could be so kind as to direct me to certain sections that constitute support for the statement which I am disputing?

64.81.167.175 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, you need to consider the whole definition and the rationale for the writing and inclusion of this passage, rather than looking at it in isolation. The rationale was that certain Japanese nationalists and their sympathisers have attempted repeatedly to reduce the scope of this article, so that it deals with only the events of either 1941-45, 1937-45 or 1931-45. The point of the passage is not to say that events before 1941 were not war crimes, but rather that many people in said countries may not automatically think of events before 1941, and/or connect them to "Japanese war crimes". For instance, you missed the relevant section of the Symonds article, which says: "Ienaga dates the Pacific war from 1931 [emphasis added] and claims that the attack on Pearl Harbor a decade later was a lineal development of the war in China, which for the Japanese was the central theater. Both Schultz and Dull, indeed most American historians, date the war from December 1941. This is perhaps natural, but Ienaga's argument is compelling." And so on. Grant | Talk 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Asian Holocaust

The war crime of Japan was decided according to a International Military Tribunal for the Far East. (As well as Nuremberg Trials) Please look at Article 5 of the international Far Eastern military court ordinance if there is a rebuttal in my opinion. It is not academic to delete this law explanation, and to use the word called Asian Holocaust at all. Asian Holocaust is used for the slaughter of the Tibet people and the Falun Gong believer in Chinese. Moreover, a lot of citizens were slaughtered by China as for Cultural Revolution. --KoreanShoriSenyou 06:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the "Definitions" section again. There is a lot that you seem to be missing there, such as the general concept/definition of war crimes and the fact that a lot of trials after 1945 happened in places other than Tokyo.

And how could "Asian holocaust" be used for things that happened only in China or Tibet? Grant | Talk 07:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a trial system in Japan though whether it exists in your country is not understood. And, the crime is decided in the court. The war crime of Japan is not decided by your personal feelings. (Because the Japanese is accustomed to hatred, I do not have bad feelings for you. )　--KoreanShoriSenyou 08:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making several basic errors of fact and neutral point of view in your edits:

1. "Asian holocaust" is sometimes used for crimes committed by the Japanese military.
2. War crimes are not simply defined by public international law; for example, they may be defined by the military of the country in question, and it has been shown that the Japanese military did not follow its own code in this respect.
3. Referring to war crimes as being defined by the trials before the (Tokyo) International Military Tribunal is incorrect; most trials of Japanese personnel were held in other parts of Asia and the Pacific and were not under the auspices of the Tribunal.
4. Many ordinary Koreans did not accept the annexation in 1910 and they resisted it by force.
5. The annexation of Korea was illegal, as shown by the reference provided (Yutaka Kawasaki, “Was the 1910 Annexation Treaty Between Korea and Japan Concluded Legally?” Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, v.3, no. 2 (July 1996)

You are odds with Wikipedia policy and the majority of editors here. Please address these issues before you revert again. I also take the opportunity to point out the three revert rule. Grant | Talk 11:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1. "Asian holocaust" is sometimes used for crimes committed by the Japanese military.

You should do concrete proof. For instance, please present the two or more jurists' testimonies and the historian's testimonies.

1. War crimes are not simply defined by public international law; for example, they may be defined by the military of the country in question, and it has been shown that the Japanese military did not follow its own code in this respect.
2. Referring to war crimes as being defined by the trials before the (Tokyo) International Military Tribunal is incorrect; most trials of Japanese personnel were held in other parts of Asia and the Pacific and were not under the auspices of the Tribunal.

The war crime of Japan is defined by Article 5 of International Military Tribunal for the Far East. And, a Japanese country concluded Treaty of San Francisco based on this agreement.

You do not have grounds that define the war crime of Japan. Please present law grounds that define the war crime of Japan.

1. Many ordinary Koreans did not accept the annexation in 1910 and they resisted it by force.

Please present the concrete evidence.

Is there a nation that protests against the annexation of Japan and Korea?

Please explain resisted Many ordinary Koreans concretely.

Did Korea sign by force since it fought against Japan? (Please answer with Yes or No. )

A law in about 1910 all over the world becomes illegal if it collates it with the law system in 1996. Please present the law person and the nation that insisted in 1910 it is illegal on the agreement of Japan.

I am waiting for your proof. I will be able to object by presenting material enough for you because I can understand Hangul and Japanese. --Necmate 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We need "jurists' testimonies" for the statement that "Asian holocaust" is applied to Japanese war crimes? Try Google, it's much easier.

You say: "The war crime of Japan is defined by Article 5 of International Military Tribunal for the Far East. And, a Japanese country concluded Treaty of San Francisco based on this agreement. You do not have grounds that define the war crime of Japan. Please present law grounds that define the war crime of Japan."

No. I point out once again that many trials of Japanese war criminals occurred in courts other than the International Military Tribunal and its legal framework. I also suggest you read the "Definitions" section of the article and Definitions of Japanese war crimes. As an encyclopedia we are not bound by nationally-specific legal definitions of words; we use common definitions.

So you don't accept that the annexation of Korea was illegal, accomplished by force and that war crimes were committed by the Japanese military in the colonisation of Korea? I quote from Korea under Japanese rule:

Lack of legality

Main article: Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty

In May 1910, the Minister of the Army of Japan, Terauchi Masatake, was appointed as "Resident General of Korea", with the mission to finalize the annexation (official commencement of this position after the annexation occurred on October 1 of the same year). On August 22, 1910, Korea was effectively annexed by Japan with the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty signed under duress by Lee Wan-Yong, Prime Minister of Korea, and Terauchi Masatake, who became the first de facto Governor-General of Korea.

The text was published one week later and became effective the same day. The treaty stipulated:

* "Article 1: His Majesty the Emperor of Korea concedes completely and definitely his entire sovereignty over the whole Korean territory to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan.

* Article 2: His Majesty the Emperor of Japan accepts the concession stated in the previous article and consents to the annexation of Korea to the Empire of Japan."

Both the protectorate and the annexation treaties were declared void in the 1965 Basic Treaty between Korea and Japan since it was: 1. obtained under threat of force, and 2. the Korean Emperor, whose royal assent was required to validate and finalize any legislation or diplomatic agreement under Korean law of the period, refused to sign the document,[9][10].

Liberation movement

Main article: Korean independence movement

Upon Emperor Gojong's death, anti-Japanese rallies took place nationwide, most notably the March 1 (Samil) Movement of 1919. A declaration of independence was read in Seoul. It is estimated that 2 million people took part in these rallies. The protests were violently suppressed: according to Korean records, 46,948 were arrested, 7,509 killed and 15,961 wounded; according to Japanese figures, 8437 were arrested, 553 killed and 1409 wounded.[11] The Encyclopedia Britannica states that about 7,000 people were killed by the Japanese police and soldiers during the 12 months of demonstrations.[12] The March 1 movement was a catalyst for the establishment of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in Shanghai in April 13, 1919.

Even if the treaty was legal, that is not the biggest "crime" here, which is the treatment of the Korean people. Grant | Talk 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Many treaties are "legal". The problem is that many of them are also Unequal Treaties. I mean it was perfectly "legal" that the colonialists to the New World exterminated the Native Americans and took their land. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

An international agreement of Japan and South Korea is not denied to be felt that you are personally illegal. However, there is no official nation that assumes this agreement to be a war crime anywhere. (Though North Korea will be tuned to your idea. )

Finally, you were not able to prove grounds that were called the war crime of Japan Asian Holocaust. Perhaps, you might slander Japan for that though you have a political policy that looks like Chinese Communist Party. KoreanShoriSenyou 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

KoreanShoriSenyou, I refer you to a relevant official policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, which says: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon." You have still not addressed the issues that I have raised above. And please desist from changing the article against consensus.

It is also against Wikipedia policy to make a personal attack on another editor, that is call him/her a North Korean/Chinese communist sympathiser just because they disagree with your very personal opinion. Grant | Talk 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rape of Nanjing

Why is this phrase only uttered in the notes? 71.68.15.63 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

==

Holocaust of Asia was introduced by The Rape of Nanking. This word is stirred term made from Chinese's Iris Chang, and Chinese Communist Party willingly uses it. --211.3.113.247 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)