Not all Japanese were convicted of war crimes.

Not all those convicted of war crimes were sentenced to die.

There are many issues with Japan of varying importance that the Koreans take issue with…

You asked, “Why is Roh suddenly making an issue of it?” If you had asked, why is he suddenly making such a serious issue about it, then your intent might have been clearer. The “suddenly” making an issue seemed to suggest that this was not an issue with others before him, which is what I was asking for clarification about.

I was wondering why Roh has been stoking the anti-Japanese flames in Korea. “Are you suggesting he hasn’t been?”

Several of the links I included to my own past posts would demonstrate that Roh has been irresponsible. Last March I use the word “shrill” and I called the Korean government’s reaction “undiplomatica” and said they were “over-reacting to this in an emotional way that, in the long run, may be counter to their interests.” I also complained that Ban Kimoon seems to have suggested that “destroying Korean-Japanese relations is in order.” Since I’m certain you followed that link I laid out right in front of you, there should be no question of where I stand on that.

I wonder how many “unconvicted” war criminals are buried in Arlington National Cemetery? The Japanese were convicted as war criminals because they lost the war.

Not all Japanese were convicted of war crimes. The war crimes tribunals were not indiscriminately convicting Japanese people. The Japanese defeat provided the opportunity to try these people, but their own war-mongering actions were what got them convicted. In fact, not all of them were sentenced to die, which is evidence that the tribunals were not as much about exacting revenge as Japan’s right-wing would have us believe.

How many Americans were convicted as war criminals in World War II?

I’m not sure how many, if any, Americans were convicted of criminal wartime activities, but during the Vietnam War, William Calley was convicted (arguably as a scapegoat) and sentenced to life in prison for ordering the murder of twenty-two civilians, so it’s not as if the US is entirely unwilling to try its own for actions that go beyond what is necessary in war, as these fourteen had done.

Furthermore, a number of the indictments were crimes against peace, which Japan, as the instigator of the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War, had done. Unless one believes what the Japanese right-wing states today, which is that the U.S. forced Japan into war.

Surely there were also war crimes on the US side, as well? Should US presidents refuse to visit the United States Air Force Academy Cemetery because the (Tiger of Tokyo,) “Bombs Away Lamay” is buried there?

Curtis LeMay himself said that had the U.S. lost, he likely would have been convicted of war crimes. But nobody in Germany or Japan was convicted of aerial bombing per se, just or waging war against another country. Again, Japan and Germany did this, the Allies did not.

Now, if there someone like William Calley or what’s-her-name England were to be buried in Arlington, I think it would be reasonable for people to be opposed to that interment.

I look forward your skewering of the fact that Koreans fought on the side of Japan and that 23 Koreans were executed as war criminals, including General Hong Sa-ik, who was hanged as a Class A war criminal.

No need to skewer that. It did happen, and I knew that long before I ever saw the name Gerry Bevers appear in phosophorus. I’ve written that into reports and other works. Ethnic Koreans were about 1% of the total of all imperial Japanese soldiers accused of war crimes.

But the existence of hundreds of such collaborators in a country of 25 million does not make a militarily occupied and tightly controlled Korea “Japan’s greatest ally,” as you have put it.

By the way, is General Hong Sa-ik enshrined at Yasukuni along with the ethnic Koreans who actually did die while in Japanese uniform? Or did they not include him, an executed war criminal like Tojo, in the late 1970s because inclusion would not have made the political point the right-wingers wanted to make?

I do not really follow what is going on in Japan. All I really know is what I read in the Korean media, and what I see in the Korean media is petty stuff about “Dokdo,” “shine visits,” and “history books.” Is there something I am missing?

Can someone please tell what the Japanese right is saying, and why it is more scary than what government officials are saying in North and South Korea?

Gerry, that was not a rhetorical device but a genuine question: when I asked “Are you suggesting that no Korean head-of-state made an issue of Tokto/Takeshima before Roh Moohyun?” I was in fact asking if you meant that Tokto/Takeshima was never made an issue prior to the Roh Moohyun administration.

Why don’t they just say what they want to say instead of “suggesting” that a previous post prompted their comment?

Your post did in fact prompt my comment.

I hate it when people start a post by saying, “Are you suggesting that…?” Why do they need an excuse to comment? Why don’t they just say what they want to say instead of “suggesting” that a previous post prompted their comment?

Of course, I was not suggesting that “no Korean head-of-state [has] made an issue of Tokto/Takeshima.” I asked why Roh was making an issue of it because I cannot remember any other Korean president, except for maybe Rhee, who has declared “diplomatic war” because of it. I was wondering why Roh has been stoking the anti-Japanese flames in Korea. “Are you suggesting he hasn’t been?”

I wonder how many “unconvicted” war criminals are buried in Arlington National Cemetery? The Japanese were convicted as war criminals because they lost the war. How many Americans were convicted as war criminals in World War II? Surely there were also war crimes on the US side, as well? Should US presidents refuse to visit the United States Air Force Academy Cemetery because the (Tiger of Tokyo,) “Bombs Away Lamay” is buried there?

I look forward your skewering of the fact that Koreans fought on the side of Japan and that 23 Koreans were executed as war criminals, including General Hong Sa-ik, who was hanged as a Class A war criminal.

Japan has long been a peaceful and responsible nation, but the people trying to expand its military and its military’s role in order to make Japan “a normal country,” are not the same as those responsible for its pacifism.

By way of analogy, Tokyo altering the pacifist status and Washington pushing to expand Japan’s military role on the basis of Japan not being a threat to anyone would be like getting rid of the lifeguard at the pool because no one has drowned in years. Maybe no one has drowned because the lifeguard has been there to prevent things from getting that far.

The status quo has worked to keep this once highly volatile region amazingly war-free. What compelling reason is there to change it?

The Japanese rightists are especially scary because of this. They are not just being racist, etc. They are pressing for a return to the militarism of the Meiji.

By the way, as for the Korean roots of the Japanese imperial family, this has been confirmed by no less than His Majesty Akihito. :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/else.....27,00.html

Those sympathetic to the Japanese rightists should pay attention to the moderate words of Emperor Akihito, who, unlike his father, is a symbol of Japan’s humanity and culture.

Although Japan’s shift towards nationalism and militarism in recent years is disturbing, we must remember that there are still voices of reason and peace within Japan. The current imperial family, in particular, shows a pattern of enlightenment and wisdom, in stark contrast to the nationalistic pandering of Japan’s politicians.

Context.

I know a few Korean priests who would feel just fine calling Ahn a terrorist. Ahn, I have read somewhere, was refused last rites due to his actions.

And his actions were foolish to begin with. Based on other incidents prior to that, he should have expected a strong retaliation against Koreans because of this. The argument has been made that militarists used the assassination (some have even suggested conspiracies that the militarists knowingly encouraged or allowed the assassination of this thorn in their side) of the relatively moderate It? as a pretext for full, unimpeded annexation of Korea, something which It? had opposed (though he supposedly accepted it later as inevitable due to militarists’ designs on Korea).

At any rate, the retired Resident-General and former Japanese Prime Minister It? was little more than a symbol. It would be like Iraqis trying to assasinate George H.W. Bush NOW for his role in the 1991 Gulf War. If killing a symbol of Japanese rule was meant to galvanize the Korean people, I wouldn’t call it terrorism (though I would still call it misguided). But if the killing was meant to strike fear in the hearts of the Japanese people, I think ‘terrorism’ might be appropriate.

But ‘terrorism’ is a loaded word when ‘assassination’ is a perfectly suited word for what An Chungg?n did.