A-bombing and fire-bombing major urban areas is apparently OK, but sexual slavery is not.
A Japanese-American lawmaker has introduced a bipartisan resolution to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee calling on Japan to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the “comfort women.”
You all know my take on this. As much as I dislike how hardly a day goes by without Seoul demanding Tokyo apologize for some historical wrongdoing, at least Seoul arguably has the right to make such demands. The United States, on the other hand…
Postscript: While U.S. lawmakers are sitting around demanding apologies from other countries, you know what might be fun to see? How about a U.S. lawmaker submitting a resolution calling on Russia to apologize for the mass rape of German women during the closing stages of World War II.
120 Comments
Something like this was passed last year, or maybe I’m mistaken:
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti.....57157.html
High-minded civic virtue or shameless vote pandering?
You be the judge.
There are no election pressures on these guys for two years. The sponsors of the resolution, including the author Honda, are mostly from California, where they are no doubt hearing from KA and CA constituents. The resolution also makes reference to efforts by Japan’s LDP to repudiate earlier acknowledgements of the government’s role in the comfort women system. It will be an interesting spring with Abe set to visit Washington over Golden Week.
“A-bombing and fire-bombing major urban areas is apparently OK, but sexual slavery is not.”
Yes, Mr. Marmot, the former is “OK” when engaged in total war, while the latter is never ok. I don’t understand what is so difficult about this. It’s a clear, obvious distinction, and you know it is.
Our A-bombing was motivated by trying to end a bloody war that was well into its fourth year and that was started by a sneak attack. It saved a million American lives, and millionS of Japanese lives. The enslavement of comfort women, on the other hand, was motivated by the need to get the soldiers a little nookie. No difference? An absolutely ridiculous obfuscation, with no basis in reality or morality of any kind.
colontos: No difference? On the contrary, I see a big difference. One act involved the leveling of entire cities with the intention of killing large numbers of civilians (and we’re not talking about just the a-bombs here. See also the firebombing of Tokyo and Kobe), while the other didn’t.
And one involved the rape of thousands of women for no purpose other than to satisfy some soldiers, and the other was a legitimate and effective means of forcing a fierce enemy to capitulate, and (among other things) to stop raping said thousands of women and thousands more.
Your argument is nothing but sophistry, and you know it is.
And I’m well aware of the multiple firebombings that the US conducted, justifiably. Might I direct your attention to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, without which no part of Japan would have been fire- or a-bombed?
dogbertt, Honda is your kind of man. He fits your party affiliation and political beliefs.
He’s been onto this for quite a while now. At least 5 years back.
Japanese govt does nothing in response, so that’s why you’re hearing about him again and again.
I just want to know how come you become conservative and judgmental when it’s Korea.
Whereas for me, I don’t have double standards like you, at least in the voting booth.
i think I saw him once or twice on CNN or Fox news, doing those short politician interviews with the news host.
shakuhachi, I suspect you’ll claim he’s of Korean descent. LOL.
wjk, I agree with all your comments. It’s like certain Westerners living in Korea get SOO jaded by life in Korea that they constantly take any side that presents Koreans in the worst light. They CLAIM they are trying to see the truth….but what they are really doing is taking pot shots back on the society that made them so jaded in the first place.
Something similar was discussed here as well
http://tinyurl.com/2y8wv6
Colontos,
So what you are basically saying that the indiscriminate elimination of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (that had nothing to do with government policy) was justified because you like the outcome? ‘Millions’ of both American and Japanese lives eh? Most sites list US casualties at about 292 000 for the entire war and estimates of the invasion were put at 250 - 500 000. I suppose if you want to believe everything Truman said as fact that is your choice…You are also dismissing the fact that there were other alternatives to both the bomb and the invasion….
As for the justifiable fire bombings, you are actually going to use “well they did it first”?
You have no backing other than your own moral guidelines - which are actually quite odd with sexual subjugation being much higher on the list than mass and indiscriminate killing.
In regards to the issue, I see this as a pandora’s box sort of issue. If it goes through, where does it end? What ’causes’ should be ‘aided’ and which ignored? Your exchange with the Marmot actually highlights the biggest problem with this whole deal - who decides what was acceptable or justifiable and what was not.
Perhaps it is just a political ploy hatched to gain popularity with what I would assume is a much larger CA and KA community than JA (forgive the lazy typing) with no actual expectation of it going through.
That’s odd, because the chief architects of said legitimate and effective means weren’t quite so sure.
Regarding colontos’ comment in #4: Right on the spot!
Why is this America’s business, affair, or thing to comment on? Let Koreans, Japanese and Chinese deal with this by themselves, their own way.
Hmmm…this would be a good idea for America militarily too. Let the countries in this region of the world wear pants like big boys and be responsible for their own security. If they choose to make peace and be reasonable, good, and if they choose to war on each other then America can tsk tsk from afar, and enjoy prosperity and neutrality while staying out of it.
There is a book title I’ve heard of which for me perfectly sums up the pointless risks of America being in Korea, or in Asia: “Korea - Massive entanglement, minimal influence”
The Goat—Truth be told, I probably would have bombed Japan into the Stone Age, too, if I’d been calling the shots in WWII. That includes the a-bombs. It’s just that once you’ve completed a massive exercise in mutual mass-murder, I find it difficult to start moralizing about the experience. And yes, as terrible as the Japan’s wartime sexual slavery was (and to make this clear, I think Japan SHOULD apologize for it), there’s something terribly wrong with our moral compasses if we rank it higher than the mass slaughter of civilians.
Because it’s all OK when it’s being done to the Japs, right?
“Because it’s all OK when it’s being done to the Japs, right?”
No Robert. Do you really think that’s what it is? God, I find yet ANOTHER Westerner SOOO jaded by how Koreans treat him that he excuses what the Japanese did to Koreans or at least sympathizes with them…..which is the equivalent to excusing or sympathizing with the Nazis. In other words, as another poster pointed out, when a Westerner living in Korea gets TOO jaded….he starts to view Japan as the Korea that could have been, which I think is a mistake.
As Colontos pointed out the A-bombings probably SAVED lives (the last major battle, Okinawa, between conventional forces of the US and Japan being the bloodiest of the war). And remember, Japan was the country who did the sneaky attack at Pearl Harbor.
But how is the US bombing of Japan in ANY WAY on the same level as the rape of Korean women forced to be sex slaves???? Care to explain THAT???
Mr. Koehler,
The ‘rules’ of war were different back then. It was an accepted and and deemed necessary procedure at the time - as can be seen by its’ use by pretty much every country involved in WWII. Being able to do it better (ie. win) does not make it ok by today’s ’standards’ or war if applied objectively. By applying today’s standards all parties involved were wrong - which brings it to my main point.
Whose standards and who decides?
The individual issues here are not the main cause for concern in my opinion - but what it could lead to heading forward.
My opinions regarding the issues brought up here are pretty irrelevant but in a nutshell…
Should the winners be held just as accountable as the losers for similar actions during combat? Yes.
Should Japan take responsibility for its’ actions in and before WWII? Yes.
Should others assume they have the authority to force another country to do take responsibility? No.
The Goat: But the US and its victorious allies, Britain, France, and the USSR, used their authority to force Germany to take responsibility for what it did to the Jews. I think this was the right thing to do. Likewise, the US has the same authority to force Japan to take responsibility for what it did to the Chinese and Koreans.
Read the link from my first post regarding the myth of German apologies and taking responsibility for its’ past. It exemplifies selective enforcement at its’ finest.
The invasions of Kyushu and Honshu would’ve been a bloodbath the likes of which the world has never seen. I’ve seen film of Japanese schoolgirls doing drills with spears, for Chrissakes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave Hirohito the excuse to put a stop to the madness. No apology required.
Put the link up.
Moral standards, eh? Well, yes, the sexual enslavement comfort women is worse than the bombing of Japan. Why? Because the bombing of Japan was a way to win a war that we didn’t start and we didn’t want. We were forced into it, and we won it, using the means at our disposal.
Other alternatives to invasion or the bomb? Like what? Wait for the Soviets to deal with it? A peace treaty letting Japan keep Korea?
And yes, we can and should moralize after a war like WWII. When (one of) our enemies forces us into a war with a sneak attack, commits atrocities against millions of civilians, and against our and our allies’ POWs, and we have to bomb some civilian areas to win, guess what? We have the moral high ground. It was right for us to win, and we did. We could have turned it around and committed atrocities in Japan. We could have had our own comfort women. We could have razed the country to the ground and sewn the fields with salt. But we didn’t, and why? Because, in 1945 at least, the USA was MORALLY SUPERIOR to the Japanese Empire. Our defeat would have been a disaster for the whole world.
And by the way, Goat, I’m not the only one who liked the outcome. The thousands of comfort women (and men in forced labor, for that matter) like it a lot, too. The same women whose sexual enslavement you are equating with a legitimate act of war. Have fun looking in the mirror tonight.
Sexual slavery, totally unnecessary, vs. doing what’s necessary to win a war? A child could make this distinction.
Uh…it’s already posted (11). Pretty much the same topic got a 105 comment thread going back in May.
Koreans treat me just fine; I have no reason to be jaded. And I’ve made it quite clear on this blog that I don’t sympathize with what the Japanese did to Koreans. What I don’t sympathize with is Westerners criticizing Japan’s lack of historical honesty when I’ve yet to hear a single Western power apologize for their imperial past. But feel perfectly free to continue making assumptions—you might eventually make a correct one.
Did the a-bomb save lives? Probably, although I fail to see how the firebombings of Japanese cities did. And at any rate, it saves lives only when you win. The Blitz and Nanking may have been motivated by the desire to break the morale of the enemy and bring the war to a close, too.
And yeah, the Japanese started the war with an attack on Pearl Harbor. In other words, they started it with a surprise attack on a prime military target. And this is supposed to provoke feelings of moral outrage in me how?
I don’t know, JK. Perhaps it’s the 100,000 Japanese dead after the firebombing of Tokyo alone.
What was the law like at the time concerning the rights and status of women in general? How common was coerced prostitution in Korea and in other parts of Asia then? I am legitimately asking (not just being rhetorical). I believe women had a pretty lousy situation anyway in Korea and around Asia, with few legal protections… but I cannot claim to be an expert on this subject and period.
It seems to me that a lot of people do not consider the very different standards of the time when condemning the Japanese for a lot of their “crimes.” I am not trying to absolve anyone of anything, but a better understanding of history would make these debates a lot more useful and interesting, and less heated.
No Pearl Harbor, no Hiroshima.
This is not “they did it first,” because they did not do to us what we did to them. We did to them what they did to us, and then we did a hundred times more. And we did it not because we wanted to, but because it was necessary.
This is “they started it and we ended it.” And I don’t ever want to live in a country that wouldn’t do the same if it was necessary.
colontos,
Are you confusing ’strategy’ with ‘morality’? A child could make this distinction too….
And I always have fun looking in the mirror…cuz I am a sexy bitch.
And then we hung their leaders… for doing a hundred times less?
“Did the a-bomb save lives? Probably, although I fail to see how the firebombings of Japanese cities did. And at any rate, it saves lives only when you win. The Blitz and Nanking may have been motivated by the desire to break the morale of the enemy and bring the war to a close, too.”
I don’t see the Germans being criticized on moral grounds for the blitz. At least, I don’t do it. They were trying to win the war. What I criticize the Germans for is killing millions of their own citizens or people within their (recently expanded) borders, people who were doing nothing to hurt the German war effort. Likewise Nanking. If Nanking had been a stronghold and the Japanese bombed the heck of it? Fine, as far as war goes. Having a two month orgy of rape, mutilation, torture, and the murder of captives? Not fine. Again, a child could make this distinction.
“And yeah, the Japanese started the war with an attack on Pearl Harbor. In other words, they started it with a surprise attack on a prime military target. And this is supposed to provoke feelings of moral outrage in me how?”
And here is your hypocrisy. So Pearl Harbor was fair game, eh? Well, I actually agree with you there. Surprise attacks are great, but be ready when things turn around on you. So Pearl Harbor provokes no moral outrage, but Hiroshima does? They were both military actions to win a war. Classic self-hating, surprising from a conservative like you, Mr. Marmot.
colontos,
So you agree with the tactics being used in Iraq against Americans?
Care to be more specific?
Robert, I think you just got called a ‘field nigger’. I feel for ya, really, what with the white hot pain of Korean whips on your back. lol.
Well, seeing as we’re struggling to come up with any moral criteria to apply to this discussion (which I guess is not surprising), might I suggest we consider human dignity?
The concept of “dignity”, or the intrinsic worth of the human being, is something that most people (if I’m not mistaken) would agree to. And it means that people should never be treated solely as a means. Indiscriminate killing of innocents would then be out of the question.
Sexual slavery of any kind, as with the Japanese use of “comfort women”, is then morally wrong (and utterly reprehensible) because it treats women solely as a means to the sexual gratification of the soldiers. Likewise, fire-bombing an entire city (e.g. the allied bombing of Tokyo, or Dresden) is also wrong, because it treats the people living in the city as the solely as a means to attaining victory.
On that score, then, the two actions are comparable. Now the first involves abusing another sexually, that is, violating her in perhaps the most intimate and personal way possible, while the other second is the indiscriminate taking of innocent life. We could continue arguing about which is worth, but it’s clear that they are both, morally speaking, evil.
I agree with Marmot that the U.S., in this respect, hardly has the moral standing to lecture Japan about its actions during WWII without at least acknowledging its own wrongdoing.
Further, comments like this I find disturbing:
“I don’t see the Germans being criticized on moral grounds for the blitz. At least, I don’t do it. They were trying to win the war.”
Ok, here’s a criticism: the German blitz was completely unjustifiable and a reprehensible imperialist invasion of countries it had no right to enter by a Nazi Dictator who was, for that reason alone, a war criminal and a thug.
We would be extremely morally impoverished if we pretended that any action in war is okay, so long as its purpose is to achieve victory. The end never justifies the means; but in the case of the blitz, the end itself was clearly not justified. What right exactly did they have entering Belgium, or the Netherlands, or France? None.
It is quite surprising to find people defending Hitler’s invasions…
Thought it was pretty self-evident but sure…
Although the combat actions of the ‘insurgents’ are deemed morally wrong by some, they are doing everything that they feel is necessary to win their war. I think in this case we can define ‘win’ by a full US pullout.
You seem to be saying that the ends justify the means - unless you lose.
Daveo: Thanks for the comment. But just to clarify, when we discussed The Blitz, we weren’t referring to the blitzkreig, but rather the German bombing of British cities, i.e., the London Blitz.
BTW, for further discussion, I’ve added a postscript to the main post.
Robert:
The single example of McNamara’s very long delayed, retrospective failure of nerve and perspective - displaced, or perhaps expanded, I would say, from his well-earned and justifiable remorse of his gross mishandling of Vietnam - is hardly pertinent, let alone dispositive.
I meant specifically as in which actions. Hiding behind buildings and launching RPGs? Sure. IEDs? Iffy, arguments could be made on both sides. The maind issue with IEDs is the same as with landmines; they have a lot of potential to hurt even after the war is long over, and they aren’t particularly effective in the first place. Beheading folks on camera? No way. This isn’t hard, guys, if you would pull your heads out of your lower areas and think for a second.
Defending Hitler’s invasions? Not I. Should we blame Hitler for starting the war? Yes, obviously. But was there anything wrong with the Blitz in itself? Or, a better question: if Britain had started the war, would the Blitz have been justified? Absolutely.
Starting a war is sometimes a crime itself. But one anyone’s in a war, they are, or should be, in it to win.
You folks are purposely not seeing the main point: the Japanese enslaved women, sexually (they did lots of other, maybe worse, things too, but this is the subject at hand). The Americans bombed cities, knowingly killing civilians. The Japanese did what they did for sexual gratification. The Americans did what they did to win a war that they didn’t start. If this is equal to you, then you are one of the following: a) dumb. b) obsessed with finding fault with America while excusing her enemies. or c) afraid to contradict things you previously said, and are therefore sticking to an untenable and ill thought-out position.
@wjk and jk: I’m not looking at this as a Korea-related issue. I see it as part of a larger trend of vote pandering by Congressmen by raising inappropriate issues in inappropriate ways (that may even harm the U.S.’s foreign relations).
For example, you have the same sort of useless resolutions in regard to the Armenian Genocide, that have no positive result and instead serve to irritate an important U.S. ally. Why does a Congressman introduce such a toothless resolution? Is he a crusader for historical justice, or is there a large constituency of ethnic Armenians in his district?
As a voter, I would prefer that Congressman not introduce these sort of resolutions that have f*ck all with the business of our federal legislature.
Japan paid a heavy, heavy price for waging war against America. Perhaps if they never attacked the US, the western world may have let them keep their empire to this day in 2007.
But, in the end, their head leader, the Emperor of Japan was spared. Maybe this was to prevent communism or maybe it was to make it easier to rule over the new people, however temporary that may be.
Whereas, Germany’s Hitler and all his close generals and politicians knew there was no way Stalin would spare their necks. They were most distressed that the Red Army was way closer to them than the English and the Americans, although they all knew the French, English, and Americans wanted them dead no matter what, too. Ike rejected Germany’s offer to fight the Soviets by joining forces with the US. Some fled west and were spared. Others like Goring were greeted with death. And rightly so.
For the sake of the Japanese citizens, their god was spared. The emperor was god, literally, and maybe it would have been too much to kill their god.
In Germany, despite these men being “Christian”, they preferred suicide overwhelmingly. Versus, the Japanese, suicide was honorable and the preferred way to go, contributing to the 90% death rate in battles. Part of this total wipe out of their heads of states made the German people accept some sort of guilt and wrong doing on their parts.
They complain about Dresden, but don’t dare to ask for apologies. Or did they? One naturalized German American whom was my high school teacher, said Dresden was probably one of the most atrociously bombed cities during World War II, and he didn’t have much good to say about the US’s morals in doing so. More damage than the both the A Bombs, he claimed. US is a nice country, taking in people who experienced Dresden. They complain about the rape of East Germany by the Red Army, but they don’t dare ask the Kremlin to apologize. In fact, soldiers from that time are honored in Russia, every May 9th. Although I did meet Russians in New York who say “EVERY relative of mine had several people die during World War II, male and female.”
But, the Japanese suffered greatly, no question about that. Almost 90% fatalities in island battles with the US. A Bombs, fire bombs, hunger, children without parents, Post A Bomb cowardly Soviet intervention that resulted in massive killings and rapes, etc.
And curiously enough, the Japanese have their heads held up higher than the Germans. Especially those of the LDP. Whom happen to be sons and grandsons of the same folk who ruled Japan during the war.
It’s a good thing you added that qualifier, because I know for a fact that you are a Gundam-fetishizing, Japanese porn-obsessed individual who rather contradictorily loathes Japan and Japanese.
The U.S. is hardly in a position right now to pontificate on other countries’ wartime misdeeds, past or present. In fact, the U.S. is at its lowest moral ebb in my lifetime, including Vietnam.
“Why is this America’s business, affair, or thing to comment on? Let Koreans, Japanese and Chinese deal with this by themselves, their own way.”
Hugh, right on.
a) no
b) no
c) no
Giving up so early by going personal? I am just trying to understand your obvious double-standards on some of these issues.
I can see your point if you look at it from the historical perspective of the era - it was a perfectly normal and acceptable way to wage a war.
Haisan brought up a perfectly valid point in (26) that nobody touched - from a historical perspective what was the overall status of women’s rights? From the same perspective how serious were the crimes at the time? I have no idea myself nor will I venture a guess. It just seems to me that if you are going to compare the two, you need to be judging using the same criteria. Using the standard of today to judge the sexual slavery issue and the standards of the time to judge the bombings is ludicrous and obviously biased.
The interesting thing is that I really don’t give a shit about any of that. I am more concerned with the appropriateness of a 3rd party bringing something like this to the table - and what it means for the future. The article about the Russian rape of Germany was somewhat of an eye opener too…should this be legislated as well?
For me, I still cannot see any advantages the US has may enjoy by bringing up something like this (again). Zero. None.
Hugh:
It’s even better than you think. Read it, along with General Wickham’s “Korea On the Brink: A Memoir of Political Intrigue and Military Crisis.” Wickham, later COS USA, was Commander of UN and US Forces Korea during the period that Ambassador Gleysteen covers in “Massive Entnaglement”. Read togther, the books provide an unusually illuminating picture of exactly what sort of tar-baby we’ve got stuck to. The thing that may surprise a lot of people who are now fixated on the inanities of The Great Pretender and his Roh-Nothings is that, if anything, it’s worse when the group that passes for grown-ups in Korea is in charge.
but, it’s okay for the US to pass laws or resolutions condemning Iran for denying the Holocaust?
Tell me the key difference. The KEY difference. Please.
S’il vous plait.
dogbertt, so you fled gyopo infested California, and went to Korea.
Nice !
http://berkley.house.gov/legis....._1211.html
wjk,
One is for the UN one is for the US.
I think. I am not American, Iranian or Jewish. I grew up in Canada and live in Korea. As such, I have not followed it to say any more than that.
i already know the answer. Shaka and Bevers and Dogbertt would say,
Comfort women were professional whores, sold out by Koreans, and it can be proven by this US GI’s report, and this matches perfectly with the position of the LDP leaders. Note that this US GI who wrote this in 1945 was a Japanese American soldier, who was out to prove his loyalty to the US, fresh out of the US internment camp.
link says US house of Reps, unanimous.
There was a UN resolution also.
Does that strengthen my argument, somewhat?
Hey, not that you would know, but California used to be a nice place, before it became the U.S.’s default demographic dumping ground.
Anyhow, I can’t fault Korean citizens living in Korea for being loyal and patriotic to Korea. They should be.
I have nothing to say about the comfort women one way or another, you fetishistic freak.
I can’t wait until baseball season when you’ll calm down and have something to keep you occupied. Or until you hit puberty and your hormones settle down to the point where you can start to think logically about something more significant than how long you should wait before washing your spank sock.
dogbertt, why don’t you just say California was a nice place when most people were white? Isn’t that what you mean?
Children, can we play nice down here for a change?
Sorry Robert.
Ask nulji; he had something to say about that.
actually, I went to kindergarten and 1st grade in Queens, New York, when there was only one other Korean kid besides me, and only a few knew what a Korean was.
“Chinese or Japanese ?” was the usual question I would get.
You assume too much, dogbertt.
“the U.S. is at its lowest moral ebb in my lifetime, including Vietnam.”
I’m afraid it’ll get worse in the years to come.
Sorry, I missed the link. It helps somewhat but you are still comparing things that are basically unalike in nature.
Making resolutions to go to the toothless dog that is the UN - fine
Making resolutions that affect foreign policy decisions - fine
Making resolutions to try and persuade/force/coerce a foreign government to apologize/do something/etc is a different ball of wax - there are better ways.
The Iranians denied the holocaust - the Japanese are not denying that this issue happened (although they did at first I think) - it was officially acknowledged in 1993.
Another difference is that Japan is a key ally of the US whereas Iran, clearly is not.
I see too many differences for them to be compared at face value.
I stated my opinion that it is a bad idea - for any government to try and involve themselves with the internal affairs of others as it will just create a big freakin mess in the future.
The other side that nobody is looking at is that what good would it do even if by some miracle it went through? And by an even bigger miracle that the Japanese acted on it. It would clearly be an ‘insincere’ apology at the behest of the mighty US and be discounted anyways. Then everybody is back to square one - if not further behind.
interesting read here:
http://tinyurl.com/2gvpbr
The last two paragraphs (quotes) are pretty important I think.
Basically I think you are digging around so you and people like JK can go “A-Ha! You hate Korea!” and spout off your theories about why.
dogbertt,
don’t count on baseball season - one memorable rant of his about colonial Japan was in the WBC thread.
This post was the proverbial red flag-the national motto of Korea is “I rant, therefore I am.”
@wjk:
Do you know “bluejives”?
@Robert:
Buy “Heavy Weapon”. I’ll donate the points.
Japan, if you say you’re sorry, we’ll protect you from the Coreans when they come after you.
If you don’t say you’re sorry, your cities might burn like last time.
Mentos!
Robert, regarding comment #25, you wrote:
“Koreans treat me just fine; I have no reason to be jaded. And I’ve made it quite clear on this blog that I don’t sympathize with what the Japanese did to Koreans. What I don’t sympathize with is Westerners criticizing Japan’s lack of historical honesty when I’ve yet to hear a single Western power apologize for their imperial past. But feel perfectly free to continue making assumptions—you might eventually make a correct one.”
Aren’t you the same guy who ASSumed I supported Colontos’ comment in #4 because it was about, as you said, “Japs”? You wrote: “Because it’s all OK when it’s being done to the Japs, right?” when I said in comment 13: “Regarding colontos’ comment in #4: Right on the spot!”
You threw in a red herring because the issue was NOT about the race of people doing something as it was the CRIME that was committed. As Colontos later stated, one cannot call the sexual enslavement of Korean women by the Japanese a legitimate act of war that was in ANY way justified. The bombings of Japan by the US on the other hand CAN be called a legitimate act of war.
wjk wrote:
“but, it’s okay for the US to pass laws or resolutions condemning Iran for denying the Holocaust?
Tell me the key difference. The KEY difference. Please.
S’il vous plait. ‘
The regime that held the Holocaust denial conference is still in power. The regime responsible for Comfort Women was replaced at the end of WWII, and many of its top leadership tried for war crimes.
JK,
That would be all fine and dandy if that were the argument at the time. However, at the time the whole definition of what constitutes a crime was in question - meaning the bombing of civilians too. The whole acts of war/morality thing evolved after those comments.
Going to watch a few dvd’s with the wife…will catch up with this again tomorrow.
There are a lot of blogs that prohibit posting 4-5 times in a row like wjk is unfortunately fond of doing. Get your “thoughts” or “feelings” or whatever they are together and write one comment.
“Postscript: While U.S. lawmakers are sitting around demanding apologies from other countries, you know what might be fun to see? How about a U.S. lawmaker submitting a resolution calling on Russia to apologize for the mass rape of German women during the closing stages of World War II.”
Yes, and I would like my government to call on Norwegians, Swedes and Danes to apologize for the Viking depredations on the lands south of them.
And I call on Canada to apologize for Celine Dion. ‘My heart will go on’…oh gawd
And the Mongolians should be made to apologize to everyone (except maybe the Huns)!
Goat: Not to mention the assumptions that the discussion was all about “jaded Westerners taking pot shots at Koreans” had already begun in comment #10.
Two points. First, I agree that the sexual enslavement of Korean women by the Japanese cannot be called a legitimate act of war. Second, however, whether the bombings of Japan constituted a “legitimate act of war” is, well, subject to debate. Somehow, I feel that had the Japanese strategically bombed San Francisco or Seattle it would have been viewed as a legitmate act of war. If Donitz could be found guilty for conducting unrestricted submarine warfare (although he was not sentenced for it when it was discovered—surprise, surprise—that U.S. and British commanders had issued similar orders to their submariners), Goering held responsible at least in part for his role as commander of the Luftwaffe (although, as far as I know, the area bombardment of British cities was not cited as a war crime, most likely because the Allies had waged the most destructive strategic bombing campaigns of the war) and Japanese generals held accountable for conducting a scorched eart campaign in China, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the wholesale destruction of cities was also a war crime, if not by the letter or the law then certainly the spirit?
Robert, my comment to wjk about “jaded Westerners taking pot shots at Koreans” was not about you, at least when I wrote it. So don’t take it personally since it wasn’t aimed at you. It was about ANOTHER Westerner who had commented on this thread.
Loath as I am to credit The Guardian, this piece is worth looking at in this discussion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....78,00.html
JK: Sorry, my bad. Ignore my snarky comment.
sonagi,
Replace? Replace what? LDP is a direct continuation of the Emperial Japanese leadership.
Not to even mention other Prime Ministers of Japan, even the current Prime Minister of Japan has a father or grandfather who was in political office during World War II and even before that. Some LDP members are even closer than father, grandfather. Meaning, they were there.
So, Sonagi, how did Ponta, Garlic Breathe et al treat you when you wrote up your review of So far from the Bamboo Groves?
You don’t have to be nice to those kind of people or apologize for their actions, Sonagi.
Nobody offered up even a decent reason on the difference between Iran and Japan. Japan US alliance won’t tank just because Japan was forced to do what it tried to avoid to do by signing a paper with Lt. Okamoto in the 1960s and consistently avoids to do until this day.
I bet you everyone would support the US Congress condemning violence in Sudan or Indonnesia, but somehow not if it concerned the Empire of Japan. Nippon Ichi ? Tenno Banzai? LOL.
The Marmot unplugged part 2?
I think people need to step back and note:
-This attempted “sense of the Congress” statement does not reflect or influence US government policy toward Japan. It can’t be suppressed by the White House or even vetoed, although it can be stifled by procedural steps in the House.
-This comes from the same outfit that gave us “Freedom Fries”.
-Japan DOES have an active Nanjing/comfort women/731/etc DENIAL movement with significant ties to the ruling party and especially with PM Abe. I’m not aware of the equivalent in the US — which would entail, not debating the pros and cons or moral points as some aredoing here, but people outright denying the Tokyo firebombing took place or calling for debate on “the myth of Hiroshima”
‘your book review at that bigot’s site…’ wkj to sonagi paraphrased
when gerry lost his job, you questioned why he would post on a site like occidentalism and yet, we now see you doing the same thing. does this mean your true colors are coming out? bigot in the closet now in need of some sun? i always knew you were a bitch but now a race baiter? tsk, tsk, tsk… oh, how far you’ve sunk, sonagi.
‘yeah, robert, me and you, we gotta go through the fire!’ grand cyclops/matt/occidentalism/bigot to marmot
are you kidding me? you trying to compare yourself with marmot? are you nuts? marmot is just a guy with the wrong political views. you, on the other hand, run a hate site. the nerve of you trying to compare yourself with him. that’s like a cockroach saying he’s a honey bee.
don’t ever make these kinds of comparisons again, you understand?
man, the nerve. oh, but the the bigot do got balls, don’t he?
I didn’t have time to read past comment #6…
…but I feel pretty sure at least Marmot can remember my position on the idea of the criminal nature of Allied bombing in Dresden or Tokyo and whatnot.
All I want to add to what I’ve said previously on the matter is that —- between the last time this topic came up and today — I caught a good program on the bombing of Japan.
It was a show oddly enough about the Jet Stream.
It seems the US first tried to use precision bombing to take out factories and other such targets from high altitude, but the as yet not understood jet stream screwed it up. So the carpet and fire bombing came about as result of that.
Maybe when I get to heaven, I’ll ask the powers that be up there to play me some clips with what the war would have looked like if the Allies had not been such criminal bastards as to have forced Nazi Germany and totalitarian Japan into unconditional surrender, or if we had just done so without resulting to such vile, evil, criminal means as fire bombing…….
It would be nice to be able to see such hypotheticals played out and then talk about all this (and the value judgements we tack on from hindsight)…..
“i always knew you were a bitch but now a race baiter? tsk, tsk, tsk… oh, how far you’ve sunk, sonagi.”
“marmot is just a guy with the wrong political views”
This is extremely, nauseatingly rich from pawi, whose views on who’s sunken or risen and who has the “right political views” would not have any merit even if 5 billion plus people died tomorrow and he was the last person left on the planet.
If pawi were to learn the difference between racist hatred and criticism, he would still be an ass, but perhaps less of an ass, slightly.
wjk wrote:
“So, Sonagi, how did Ponta, Garlic Breathe et al treat you when you wrote up your review of So far from the Bamboo Groves?
You don’t have to be nice to those kind of people or apologize for their actions, Sonagi.”
wjk, I appreciate the kind intent of your post, but please don’t lump together Ponta and Garlic. I almost never respond to Garlic’s flame-bating but have kept up a long discussion with Ponta about Japanese colonial rule. Ponta is polite and has never written anything that I consider personally disrespectful or insulting.
nulrogi wrote:
“when gerry lost his job, you questioned why he would post on a site like occidentalism and yet, we now see you doing the same thing. “
I did? Refresh my memory with a link, please. Thanks.
does this mean your true colors are coming out? bigot in the closet now in need of some sun? i always knew you were a bitch but now a race baiter? tsk, tsk, tsk… oh, how far you’ve sunk, sonagi.
I love it when a man calls me a BITCH!!! Oh, yeah, baby! Makes me wanna put on the black leather and take out the whip, and boy, your flabby a** sure could use a good whuppin’!
@Slim:
Thanks for another spot-on commentary on our little man who sits under a bridge spewing hate at the expat blogsphere.
quote Goat #11 “In regards to the issue, I see this as a pandora’s box sort of issue. If it goes through, where does it end? What ’causes’ should be ‘aided’ and which ignored? Your exchange with the Marmot actually highlights the biggest problem with this whole deal - who decides what was acceptable or justifiable and what was not.”
Marmot #15 “That includes the a-bombs. It’s just that once you’ve completed a massive exercise in mutual mass-murder, I find it difficult to start moralizing about the experience.”
Contemporary Western society fascinates me. In two generations, we’ve done much to wipe out of the minds of the educated what was for a time one of the crowning achievements of it - namely - defeating fascism and totalitarian factions in nations who had the might and will to begin the struggle that led to the deaths of millions on both side.
Western intelligencia, particularly profs, should be proud of themselves.
I’ve spent a lot of time in college, but thankfully I came away still being able to believe that there are some rights and some wrongs in the world and can judge against them - whether I’m dismissed for just being bias like everybody else.
I have no problem moralizing about the whole matter. I can wade through the means of the day, the enemy faced, a vision of what might have happened if we had avoided “mass murder” and given Germany and Japan even time to get the same tools and use them against us, and what came afterward.
I have no problem believing the Allies were the ones with right on their side and the actions of the day were not “murder.”
clontos #23 “Other alternatives to invasion or the bomb?”
Some in the West argued at the time (like the poet Robert Lowell) that forcing unconditional surrender was immoral. Which would mean another type of surrender would have been possible. Which I would love to see if such an establishment of peace would have, say, left Japan in control of Korea? To the American mind at the time, at least in the military, it had been part of the empire of Japan for at least 35 years, and aided in Japan’s war effort. Or perhaps some better Nazis than Hitler would have been allowed to run the show? We left Hussein in power in Iraq War I…
Marmot #71 “wouldn’t it stand to reason that the wholesale destruction of cities was also a war crime, if not by the letter or the law then certainly the spirit?”
Given the means of the day, the consequences of losing, and the nature of the Axis regimes —– No.
usinkorea,
I don’t think I ever said if I personally thought what was done was either just, unjust, moral or immoral. My personal opinion has no relevance to what I consider to be the bigger picture…
Should a government of a third part nation assume it has the right to enforce its’ own morality upon another nation.
That’s it. Nothing more.
The other stuff (which I stated I really don’t give a shit about) is just trying to figure out other points of view about something I consider to be an aside. The only thing I have been able to come up with about some people is that if the cause is deemed to be in the right, by any means necessary is acceptable. I don’t think I will ever agree with that.
Pretty weak having to turn to the armchair sociological analysis babble…
First up, that is not a quote of anything I made. I did not compare my self to Robert in any manner. You are mentally ill, right? I mean, you have spent some of your life in an institution?
Go f**k yourself.
‘Thanks for another spot-on commentary on our little man who sits under a bridge spewing hate at the expat blogsphere.’
but you’re the one associating with an open bigot, aren’t you? you should be ashamed of yourself for posting on that site.
‘Go f**k yourself.’ the fideist
interesting to see you behave in ways you won’t tolerate at that nazi bar you run.
to sonagi:
i’m wondering why you would legitimize a boy who is clearly racist. your post on that site lent the creep credence. why would you do that? are you another bevers? i’ll understand if you don’t reply.
oh, can i ask you? how do you feel about dogbert telling me my mother is a whore? doesn’t quite grab you in the same way as me calling you a bitch, huh?
there is a problem. it’s very clear to many koreans that occidentalism is antikorean website. however many foreigners in korea think occidentalism is website that is not afraid to show true face of korea. i think we must ask ourself why koreans hate occidentalism and esl teachers are in love with occidentalism.
As far as the Goat’s comment “enforcing morality” on another nation, I don’t believe that’s the crux of that particular piece of legislation. I believe it is merely a stance, a statement as to what the American government wishes Japan to see as their view on the issue. There is little talk of enforcing anything.
As to the use of the atomic bomb. There’s a good line in a movie called “Fatman and Little Boy”. “You should stop playing God. You’re not very good at it and the job’s already taken.”
Even if we could see into some sort of alternative reality, and Hiroshima saved lives, I still have a problem. It’s another Japanese word. Nagasaki…
Maddlew,
You are correct. It should have read ‘impose’ as enforcement is impossible.
The whole thing still begs the question - what can the people who (re)introduced this possibly stand to gain from the perspective of the US? Piss off your only solid ally in the region?
“are you kidding me? you trying to compare yourself with marmot? are you nuts? …you, on the other hand, run a hate site. the nerve of you trying to compare yourself with him. that’s like a cockroach saying he’s a honey bee.”
/said Pawi.
//I say, tell him like it is.
I agree with you there. Alot of gnashing of teeth.
I think there is a distinction that is being missed, not by the lawmakers but by the public in general. Nobody’s denying that we dropped the bomb, or what we did to Dresden. But Japan seems to be denying the rape of Nanking and the forced prostitution of Korean women. The rest they seem to be rationalizing. To top it all off they are pressuring politicians journalists to silence their opposition to this trend. Someone needs to stand up.
In war there is no end to the culpability. The only way we can extricate ourselves is to end wars. We are far from that possibility.
But to have entered into it and then deny its existence is hard to swallow.
Japan initially denied the comfort women thing but I read that it was officially recognized in 1993 (?). I don’t have time to review this link as I am going out for dinner with my increasingly impatient wife
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/w.....olicy.html
I may have a different opinion if it was still being officially denied.
it’s not the first time shakuhachi, a white Australian, has used the N word. It can be found on this thread.
it’s not the first time dogbertt has claimed US was so much nicer without the other kind of people immigrating into the US.
They both love occidentalism.org.
Bevers will tell you that King Saejong taught the Japanese about comfort women. LOL.
pawi wrote:
“i’m wondering why you would legitimize a boy who is clearly racist. your post on that site lent the creep credence. why would you do that? are you another bevers? i’ll understand if you don’t reply.
oh, can i ask you? how do you feel about dogbert telling me my mother is a whore? doesn’t quite grab you in the same way as me calling you a bitch, huh?”
Now that you’re being slightly civil, I’ll be glad to respond. Your question about why I posted at Occidentalism is valid. I do not like the theme and general content of the website and thus have never been a regular commenter there. I posted the book review because Matt suggested it, after hearing that I had read the book. The fact that the posts and comments by non-ethnic Koreans never have anyting good to say about Korea doesn’t stop Koreans like wjk from commenting there. I am responsible only for what I write not for what other people write. I posted one entry at the invitation of the blogger. I do not run the website.
I never defend you because you do not show respect for other commenters; hence, other commenters do not show respect to you. It is possible, pawi, to disagree without resorting to personal insults, like referring to informed and helpful commenter Brendon Carr as having “bug eyes and a big nose.” Being called a bitch by some other commenters might be hurtful, but from you, it really is a compl