Talk:Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes

No consensus to delete. Deletion debate archived below. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that a country (China) that has, in the past, and to an extent continues to, opress its own people and commit atrocities, is constantly (You can't tell me that they don't encourage it, or at least tolerate it in a manner unlike their usual MO..) criticizing Japan for (obviously horrendous) actions comitted over sixty years ago and under a different government? ---Max J

The Japanese section and all the edits and re-edits seem pretty absurd to me. Let me give my humble Harvard-educated opinion (after taking a class on World War II no less) and as someone who has visited China, Japan (Yasukuni shrine included), Malaysia and Thailand. The current article is very apologist for Japan. Having recently visited China I will say yes, it is true that much anti-Japanese sentiment is flamed by an often corrupt government that prefers to direct its people anger at an external foe. That said, it doesn't take away from any accusations levied against Japan. If anything, it seems to confirm how much more the people in these countries suffered: first from Japanese invasion, then from from civil-war (China, Korea) or wars of 'liberation' (Vietnam for one), then from corrupt governments. In short, two wrongs don't make a right.

As for Japanese society, I made a point when I was browsing a bookstore in Japan to take a look at their history study preparation books (I read some Japanese). I noticed that the college ones are much more likely to mention war crimes (not that war itself isn't crime enough) than the high school ones. And neither did so to my satisfaction. This is true in the US as well - my high school textbooks certainly gazed over a great deal of controversial topics that college courses love to focus on. But something bothered me when it was in Japan. And I didn't know exactly why until I started questioning Japanese college students about it. It partly comes from having a more homogenous culture - they tend not question independently as much. So when the education ministry of Japan decides it will not cover a subject, it often never gets covered. You can have two societies - both with 'free speech' rights - but you need a respect for individual dissent to fully utilize that right. As a generalization, I did not find that respect in Japan. I remember one of the conversations I had. I showed college graduate an extremely right-wing and fanatical pamphlet from Yasukuni. She said something that translates best as 'Yes, it is the truth.' I remember saying to her that in English we have a saying about those who do not know their history. But perhaps it all got lost in the translation... -HarvardSpy

Delete this if it is not converted into a real article in 5 days. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or debating forum. --Jiang 09:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed, it has spent some time on Cleanup with no improvement. - SimonP 13:00, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It does need a major overhaul in organization and NPOV. Acegikmo1 01:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It was listed on cleanup for a month. No one's taken up to the task. We can't allow this disgrace to be sitting around any longer. --Jiang 04:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there another page or pages addressing most of the issues brought up by this page? Acegikmo1 23:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not aware of any, but whatevers at "Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan" should not be allowed to stay in the article namespace for long. The info should probably be discussed somewhere at WW2 or a related article on history. --Jiang 10:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It's had two months to turn into a real article. Delete if not massively improved. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This originally started to propagate Chinese disinformation, but a lot of human resource have already been devoted to improve this awful page. We cannot waste it. --Nanshu 02:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The effort is irrelevant. It's the final product that counts, and this is not a real article as it is. Your Japanese friend just inserted a whole bunch of 3rd grade level English as if he were in a debate. He made the article worse, not better. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not no. 3.--Jiang 05:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for sure, this cannot be left around. Agree with original poster, Wikipedia is not a forum for debate --Lan3y 20:48, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with a pleasure. The original one seems, written with much anti-Japanese bias. 'Wikipedia is not a means of calling people names or bashing people.'( Including japanese people ) The title itself can easily cause an argument. So, it sounds good for me too to delete the page. By the way, # I don't know where was the debate Jiang is talking about. At least, in the discussion page, I can't see Jiang's writing. Could you tell me the place to declare 'clean up"? I don't know 'clean up' list page, so I want to know, for my future writing. # I don't know Nanshu. Please don't paint Japanese people with the same brush. # Please discuss english skills and validity of wikipedia contents separately. Anyone can correct problems about English, as the correction to the Original text 'Dutch >> Deutsch'. ----Poo-T 16 Jun 2004
  • I'm sorry if I've come out as rude, but I thought a vote based on furthing a political goal (i.e., use of the term "propagate Chinese disinformation") and not writing an NPOV encyclopedia warranted a response. The "debate" is in the article space itself, where it should not be. Articles needing attention can be listed at wikipedia:cleanup. This was listed there for a month and no one's improved it. It's perfectly fine to overwrite other people's text, but as it is, the article consists of a set of slanted comparisons, your responses to those comparisons, and someone else's responses to your responses. Your responses helped swing the slant over and provide alterative views, but that's formatted in the structure of a message board debate and not an encylopedia article. This is what wikipedia is not. The English made the text you inserted unsalvageable and the orgininal table wasnt text to begin with. This makes the whole thing a so so chatroom convo, but a trashy encyclopedia article.--Jiang 03:37, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I thought, when someone lists a page in the 'cleanup list', at first it should be noted on the top of the target page, as 'This page is listed for cleaning up'. I can't find the record of the page about 'cleanup'. For most people, 'VfD within 5 days' on the top of the page was also the first notification about 'cleanup list'. Do you think the process you did was applied fairly? # IMHO, The original page was very political, with a biased POV, so Deleting the page seems nice. But I have to point out one point. many people overwrote the text without debating in the 'discussion' room. If someone wants to overwrite or delete another one's writing, he should declare his will and discuss with the author at the discussion/talk page before doing, at first. Don't you think so? --Poo-T 17 Jun 2004
  • Yes, if we know beforehand that someone's going to object because it's controversial. otherwise, if it's garbage everyone agrees on overwriting, then it's not necessary. In this case, before the rewrite, nothing was overwritten. --Jiang 16:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Now that the main contributer accepted the deletion, I have no reason to keep this. I just wonder why Jiang didn't vote it for deletion when his great friend posted the crap. Then no one would have wasted time. --Nanshu 02:06, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• rewritten --Jiang 16:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This reeks of anti-Japanese sentiment. jengod 17:20, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article is non-encyclopedic in that it sets forth a series of contentions without sources or facts. I'm not sure if this can even be rewritten into shape. 209.149.235.254 21:20, 19 Apr 2004(UTC)

Very interesting title if we can understand the stance of US goverment to the people of each defeated nation. But this article is written with anti-japanese emotion, by poor knowledge formed by Taiwanese education, and the contents is not essential, which result in tracing outward appearance. At a glance, there are many mistakes, though I'm not a historical specialist. It's politically charged editing. Did Japanese citizen massacre other race? Did you know Japan has not to pay any compensations by the treaty, which was intented by US government? Did you know Japanese children are taught that

"Japanese were the man who killed neighbors whom we should love. The criminal are the emperor, and your grand father."

And this comparison was often used by anti-japanesest in Japan or issue-exported neighbor country from Japan. Criminal worship? Nonsence. You are going to rob identity from Japanese. JDobby 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

It seems unfair to delete the page, so I added Japanese POV for neutrality.Poo-T 19 May 2004

Someone wrote additional writing within Japanese-side text without discussing. Some comments were just emotional/personal POV, with labelling "Japanese revisionist". But at least, he pointed one good point. This page should not focuse on China-Japan relation so much. I agree. The reason I wrote so much related to china, was simplly, most of thw writings in this page was written by Chinese POV, Chinese cultured people. But the Wiki Title is simply comparing Germany and Japan. The problem is, how we discuss about Japanese war-crime without talking about China and Korea. The Official complaints about Japanese Post-War processing, and Japanese Textbook come from only China and Korea. As a result, for Japanese, discussing the WW2 means 'talking mainly about China and Korea'.

Point 1. 'Korea was legally annexated as a part of Japan' My writing "Korea was a part of Japan" makes "a History student" crazy. This is not the place about Korean History, but we can discuss about it. At first, which law can rule Japanese annexation as illegal? (Don't use "ex post facto law"/"retroactive effect"). As far as I understand, annexation with permission of the local king, was not even needed in the world at that time(1905/1910). The only thing needed was, just accepted by Europe/US/Russia. Japanese annexation was accepted by them. Kellogg-Briand Pact tried to clarify "invasion is bad" in 1928. It is one of the differnce between France/Nazis and Korea/Japan. You wrote "King Sunjong. But considering the fate of his parents, the legality of the treaty is no more than a legal fiction". I've never heard about such reason to deny bilateral treaty. The king officially accepted the annexation. If your saying can be accepted, "Treaty of San Francisco" can be illegal, as Japanese Emperor accepted with bad grace. :P) I suggest you to go to History of Korea, and continue to discuss about it with your wiki-name, not as annonymous. Generally, you should show sources for your opinion, especially, as "a history student".

Point2 'Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea' is valid. Korea and Japan agreed about compensation, and Japanese government complies with all related agreements. Your saying is "The South Korean negotiators at that time was part of illegal military coup members, a small group of inexperienced soldiers easy to bribe or swindle. Picking such a counterpart as representative of Korea was at least partly the responsibility of then Japanese government.". It means, "Present Koreans hate the junta in 1960's, so international treaties under the military government are invalid, if Koreans dislike them". It's just a self-serving ideology for Koreans.-Poo-T 25 May 2004

Great job Acegikmo1! It's so many times better now. Thank you so much for taking to time to improve this. Now we have to consider renaming the article, since we aren't discussing the countries post WW2 in general. --Jiang 16:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

*blush* thanks! The title isn't a very clear-cut issue, since multiple topics are covered in the article. I'm thinking World War II reparations might be best. Otherwise, maybe German and Japanese response to WWII crimes or Postwar approaches of Germany and Japan would work.

Acegikmo1 18:46, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think either of the last two are fine. Maybe spell out "World War II" in its entirety? This article covers more than reparations. --Jiang 23:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought the page was already deleted. Could you stay the contents here, or place a pointer here to the new Wikipage for me?I I'm sorry, I don't have enough time now to discuss about the page. But as a japanese, at a glance, in the page, biased writings or misunderstandings still exist. I want to discuss about the contents later.--Poo-T Jun 21, 2004

I don't get what you mean. Please cite what is biased. I tagged this since recent edits have been overly defensive of the Japanese - just because they have domestic laws forbiding such things doesn't mean their troops will not break such laws. I will get back to thsi once i get a better interenet connection. --Jiang 04:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Before I discuss, someone tried to correct the writings. I think such comparison itself can cause severe dispute again and again, not suitable for a encyclopedia, so I agreed to delete the page. sigh... I hope, anyone who wants to overwrite/revert the page 'discuss first, before you do'. Here I say just two point. #1 If someone wants to compare amounts of money, he should compensate inflation effect. For ex. $300M +$200M =$500 Million in 1965 is equivalent to more than $10 Billion now. #2 I hear many complains about japan related to WW2, but most complains come from 'China/Korea and its immigrants'. Not from Philippines, Vietnam, Burma,Indonesia, Thai, India, Palau, etc. . These contries are also gotten in trouble by Japan in WW2. So I hope not to use 'Many people say..' 'Asian people say....'. Please clarify 'Who is saying'.--Poo-T 22 Jun, 2004

If you are saying that one cannot write informations that defend a specific position, then if someone makes a accusation against someone, must that be THE final conclusion? Does the first writer always write a complete NPOV article with inclusion of all information? I don't think that's what contributing to the Wikipedia is about.

I'm not sure what "such thing" you are refering to is, but Japan also had signed international treaties that for an example, prohibited the use of chemical weapons between those that signed them, prohibition of shotgun on the battlefield, or let the army execute with a trial those that fight disguised as civilians as in the famous photo from the Vietnam war. Those Japanese punished for committing war crimes, except for the category A criminal, political war criminals, were punished for breaking these treaties as well as domestic laws. Only recently, the US army in Iraq engaged in the torture of civilians and soldiers that broke both domestic and international treaties and they were punished. So yes, treaties and rules are just rules and they could be broken but this does not mean that that they don't matter. Revth 09:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to say the current version is much better than the original. However I don't believe this is a good article even in its current state. The issues raised could certainly be addressed elsewhere, but the point of it really is only to demonise Japan for "not apologising" by comparing it to the supposed model country, Germany. Otherwise why not have Italy in it as well? Why compare just two Axis powers? It's as I said - people make the comparision between Germany and Japan to use it as fuel in their campaign against Japan over WWII. The whole thing should be deleted OR changed dramatically to deal with ALL the Axis powers and their responses to WWII generally. John Smith's 13:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. This article should either incorporate Italy or be deleted. --Tkh 13:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vatican City should be added as well since it is an independent state from Italy and did participate with the Axis nations. Belinus 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

To Jia. This is the second time you disputed the neutrality of this issue. Please list reasons and explain why they matter. Revth 09:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me just say that I think this article, in my opinion, is badly organised. This is article discussing "guilt" of Japanese War crimes rather than responses, which explain why Japanese section is so large. No balance between Germany and Japan section either. FWBOarticle 03:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Each nation should have its own section before comparison section. Hermeneus 20:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where is the source for this and how recent is this claim? I'm just curious myself.

Why should this article be restricted to two of the axis members? Get-back-world-respect 17:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is pretty much about japan. Only relevance to Germany is whether Japanese response is good enough in term of German response. Why not chuck most content to Japanese War Crime section? FWBOarticle 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess there should be more German content added from experts on the subject of Germany's response to World War II Crimes. Deiaemeth 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It won't work because German response almost has zero controversy. FWBOarticle 08:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised that there is no mention of Austria as part of the Axis. Sure it was subjected to the Anschluss which many Austrians welcomed. No mention of the high proportion of Concentration Camp guards from Austria and no mention of reparations paid by Austria. (Finland let's face it had little choice but to resist the Soviets and to take what help they could). Yes Austria was subjected to the usual Nazi manipulations but no more than Germany 'proper'. Austria was NOT a 'victim' state like either Czech or Poland both of whose populations resisted the Nazis and were actively victimised by the Nazis. The Austrians who did suffer were the Austrian Jews but they weren't rounded up by external "German" Nazis they were rounded by fellow Austrians steeped in the same anti-semitic hatreds of Hitler himself (that famous native of Austria). Unlike both Poland and Czechoslovakia, Austria was not occupied (for long) by the Soviets AND was a beneficiary of the Marshall Plan a generous aid package which W Germany benefitted from but again NOT Czech, not Poland and other 'victim' states. And the Austrian resitance to Hitler? The Austrian Stauffenburg, the Austrian Bonhoeffer? And Jews are still fighting and only recently winning property back from the Austrian State who owned pieces of art by virtue of the Nazi period. I think there needs to be some serious review of the Austrian place in recent European history.

The Austrian Embassy website seeks to present Austria as a victim of Nazi aggression a period 'disasterous' for Austria, that takes some cheek!

Part of the article added on 12 February 2005 reads:

"Japan has not come to a single conclusion actions of its military during and leading up to the war"

What's does "a single conclusion actions" mean? Also, in the section title "Korea (See also Korea under Japanese rule)", the (See also...) part should be italicised and placed one line below the section title. The section title "War Criminal And Yasukuni" should be renamed and lowercased to "War criminals and Yasukuni", or "War criminals and Yasukuni Shrine"—Tokek 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article might be worthy, but it is confined a subject. It should be rewritten, merged or abandoned. Also needs citations. It's to controversial otherwise. --meatclerk 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem was that this was created with an agenda - look at the early versions. Subsequent editors tried to improve it, but it's turned out badly because of the narrow focus. I think it should simply be turned into an article about how the major powers of WWII have dealt with their war conduct. Does anyone else think it should be renamed? John Smith's 10:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should just list for deletion. John Smith's 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Although it might be true the origins of this article may be biased, I believe the subject is a valid one and one that needs to be properly addressed.

Somewhere up in this discussion the original writer of this article is criticized for their "poor knowledge formed by Taiwanese education" but that to me speaks of the ignorance and the condescendence of those in this discussion who obviously has no knowledge or more importantly INTEREST in this subject to make such over arching generalizations.

If anything the Taiwanese are the light weights when it comes to criticism of Japan in this respect. I looked on the internet to see if there was even a bleep about the recent Yasukuni visit and I didn't find anything in Taiwan. Frankly speaking I find it amazing that a Taiwanese person started this thread at all. I would've thought something like this would have originated in mainland China or Korea.

But all that being besides the point, the fact is the assertions rather poorly made by the originator of this article is mostly true. The problem with the article is not that the originator is biased, it's the fact that not enough detail and perspective is given as to WHY THINGS TURNED OUT DIFFERENTLY between Germany and Japan. This I admit may have to do with the "poor Taiwanese education" but that is no reason to give up on the whole subject. Truth is still truth even if it's biased if it indeed is TRUE.

As for the supposed "Japan Bashing" aspect of this article, I would hardly call it bashing someone if someone stepped on your foot and then decided to go around pretending like they never did or that you asked for you foot to be stomped or that the reason why they stepped on your foot justifies stepping on your foot and even morned for those who died gloriously while stepping on your foot and the feet of those around you...

I doubt the protestors of this article would hestiate to argue and write articles about it if Germany was prancing around like England attacked them and started WWII and them crossing the vichy line and marching down the Champs-Élysées and bombing London into shmitherines was to protect Europe from Asian invaders. This is in effect what the right wing in Japan are doing RIGHT NOW after 60 years(!) but then again those of you protesting this wouldn't be all that interested in what people are interested 10,000 miles away. The fact that the article showing Germany in a "good light" is rubbing people from England the wrong way some how seems viased to me too but what do I know right?

BUT ENOUGH WITH THIS LINE OF TALK! It's not constructive and rather a waste of time. We really should return to the issue of the WHY and not the WHAT.

I'm sure an extensive article could be written about it, I may even volunteer to do it, but in short the fact is this. Even during WWII there were elements in Germany itself that did not go along with the Nazi party line just as I'm sure there must've been those in Japan who did not believe completely in what their nation was doing either. (To be completely honest I'm not so sure about Japanese in Japan not believing in their "Great Eastern Empire" rhetoric but I'll be sure to look in to it fully if I end up working on the article.)

Anyway, the difference is that in Germany the ones who took charge after the fall of the Nazis were, well, not Nazis. Unfortunately in Japan the ones put in charge by the U.S. occupation force after the WWII were mostly rehash from the emperial Japanese government, I don't know McArthur was busy I guess, and the rule of their party, the LDP, continues even today. (Guess what party Goizumi is from.)

To me that goes a long way to explaining the why of the current situation not just of the retribution issue but the whole regional tension that continues to persist and will persist if not escalate. Just look at the Yasukuni visit a few days ago. (Ironically that visit was the reason why I stumbled across this artice in the first place.) Is pointing out this historical fact "Japan bashing"? I don't think so and I hope those of you asking this article to be omitted would get a little more interested and see the light.

Again, THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED but instead EXPANDED to better present the unfortunate historical circumstances in which the parties involved find themselves. Truth should never be sacrificed in the name of "unbiased-ness". Sometimes the champions of "unbiased-ness" are the ones trying to sway opinion to bury the truth which is not in their favor.

pixelminer 08/17/2006

Most of the discussion about Japanese war crimes and subsequent reactions already exists at the Japanese war crimes page. There is no need for it to be repeated here in such a pointless and POV comparison with Germany. John Smith's 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is a very valid topic and is different from Japanese war crimes. There is not another pages addressing most of the issues brought up by this page. RevolverOcelotX

It's only pointless, if you like to delete and censor. In fact, post war attitudes and repercussions have not been discussed NEARLY enough for the millions that suffered. Arguments for its deletion is based on ignorance. If anything, the article title should be renamed to reflect its true theme of discussing government, cultural, and social changes to the Axis powers after WWII. One example could be how Volkswagon gave an official apolgy and a compensation fund for its involment of running Nazi slave labor factories. Where as, Mitsubishi corp. would just differ the issue to the government. If you can imagine the Chancellor of Germany driving his entourage to Himmler's grave for the sake of honoring his sacrifice to Germany, I would think, a few PPL would object. Lighten up, this page just needs more stuff.

Hd8888 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article was redirected as a result of the discussions. The discussions can be read here-> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Responses_of_Germany_and_Japan_to_World_War_II_crimes. --meatclerk 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply