Yasukuni › Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

PHOTO BY TARO FUJIMOTO

Friday 15th August, 04:00 PM JST

Two men carry an Imperial Japanese Army flag at Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo on Friday to mark the 63rd anniversary of the end of World War II.

Latest 15 of 124 Total Comments Show All

DanManjt at 02:14 AM JST - 22nd August

Seiharinokaze

Thank you for finally responding to my asking you to judge whether Imperial Japan fought for good or for bad.

Since these are substantive replies to my question, I will address each in turn;

Subsistence and security are not something to be morally judged, good or bad.

This statement is incorrect in two accounts: its premise and its conclusion.

The premise is that Imperial Japanese leaders began hostilities to preserve its sovereignty. This is not true. Imperial Japan did not begin hostilities to preserve its sovereignty. It began hostilities to increase land holdings, power and influence. In short, Imperial Japan initiated hostilities to increase its Empire, not to protect its sovereignty.

Second, you conclude that morals are not to be applied when discerning the difference between national interest and national ambition. That is, you conclude that morals are only relevant to power politics insofar as the Victor use morals to determine the justice of their cause. This thinking is nothing other than Might Makes Right. If you honestly believe that might makes right, that only might makes right, then you must logically recognize that the US was right, since the US beat Japan Imperial Japan into submission. Further, if you believe that might makes right, you then must believe that the US was right to beat Japan into submission, that the fire-bombings were right, and that the two atomic attacks were right. Not because it ended the war (ie ends justifies the means)m not because it ended the war with the lowest loss of life, not because it was the " least abhorrent choice" but because it was the ultimate exercise of power. And since might makes right, the ultimate exercise of right must inevitably be the ultimate dictation of right.

Your conclusion, then that morality ( or ethics, or whatever words you wish to use to describe out capacity to discern right from wrong, good from bad) has nothing to do with judging the difference nation's war aims belies common sense and the accumulated experience of the ages.

There are just and unjust wars.

In a wider perspective America's confrontation with Japan is to be regarded as that of imperialism vs another imperialism rather than good vs bad.

You can see, then, that the only possible reply to this moral equivalency -- the most favorite revisionist prevarication -- is:

would you say the same about Nazi Germany and the US?
bushlover at 12:35 PM JST - 22nd August

I still can't see how celebrating the "END" of the war can get so many comments. It's not like they are celebrating the "BEGINNING" of the war. But some here like to put words in others mouths. They are true KIAs. And no that's not killed in action.
Nerzhgul at 04:40 AM JST - 24th August

I'm not sure why, but there seems to be a lot of USA bashing in the discussions. I mean, let's be very callous here, Japan pissed off the US by attacking pearl harbour- the US decided to retaliate. And then, even after being beat, they refused to give up, so the US gets the biggest stick they got and whacks Japan hard with it! Attack followed by counterattack, what's with the US bashing?

Then going back to the issue of the Shrine. Anyone willing to give up their lives for their country have the right to be honoured. However, a issue that should be addressed is the question of for what was the soldiers fighting for? Fight for the home land? Personal gain? Or just for the joy of subjugating others? Simply because one died for their country does not make them right, if their actions are enough to deem them an enemy of humanity, not only have they committed crimes against other people, but their own kind as well. Therefore, any form of respect paid to these 'people' is an afront, not only to others but also to the Japanese people!!

I refuse to judge the people who's memories are interred in the shrine. However, because the memories of war crimes are so ingrained with the names of certain of the individuals in the shrine (metaphorically speaking) you can't blame that's there's such an international outcry. Japan claims that it merely honours the soldiers that died for its country, to others it is a method of honouring the attacks that Japan made upon other nations
lipscombe at 04:44 AM JST - 24th August

honouring 'war dead' is honouring idiots. that's it. any country. any war.
lipscombe at 04:46 AM JST - 24th August

and save me all the democracy, we died for your freedom nonsense, its a bunch of crap.
cwhite at 04:50 AM JST - 24th August

It's a grave yard, if people have a problem dig em up and scatter them around Japan to their homeland graves is what some would say. Personally I distaste any grave yard dedicated for soldiers. The acres and acres and acres of US Army, Marines and Airforce grave yards with shooting in the air, fighter planes flying over, salutes and flags and what not... whats with that... can any of them choose not to have a grave, i.e ashes scattered along the seashore or shot up into space?
lipscombe at 05:24 AM JST - 24th August

my grandfather won several medals during the 1939-1945 world war. he was so ashamed of what he had done he threw them overboard on the journey back to his hometown/family and refused to speak of anything that had happened for the remainder of his life. my grandmother told me this several years after he had died. good for him I say, he gets my respect. the fools who go marching every anniversary in their best regalia and shiny shoes most definately do not.
Seiharinokaze at 02:59 PM JST - 24th August

DanManjt

Imperial Japan initiated hostilities to increase its Empire, not to protect its sovereignty.

It's true Manchukuo was gained by hostilities initiated by Japan. But at that time much part of Asia except China had already been gained by the hostilities initiated by the West. Were they seized for the protection of their suzerain powers?

I already described the reason why Japan waged war since 1937 in China. It was not to increase land holdings. Also I said that Japan should not have been involved in it.

Subsistence and security thing was mainly for the hostilities against America (namely the Pacific War). I don't repeat what MacArthur pointed out. I just meant to say that insofar as they thought it was for security and subsistence to initiate hostility as a nation's will, it's difficult and too complicated to submit the action to the judgement of morals. Morals if anything should be applied to the judgement of war crimes stipulated by the law of war.

Well, in the eyes of Japan, America seemed to be supporting Chiang Kaishek's government (with whom Japan fought!) and only promote hostility and confusion in East Asia with ambition to increase her own interest and power. Insisting on the open door policy and respect for China's sovereignty (making oneself pleasant to China) on the one hand and not taking any initiative to settle issues Japan had with China in the multi-lateral cooperative framework of Washington system which America herself had advocated was nothing but what would make the area more precarious and unstable. It would necessarily build up confrontation between Japan and China and then with America. It's what a US diplomat John MacMurray prognosticated in 1935.

Or in a wider perspective, wasn't the hostility between Japan and China in line with America's interest? America didn't fight for good but she fought under the mask of good (even by setting the stage for the sneak attack)?

As for Yasukuni thing, the war dead or "judicial dead" or whoever were only something or less of chessmen in the enormous evil that may be ruling hordes of men.
cleo at 03:05 PM JST - 24th August

There are just and unjust wars.

Yes, and poor innocent suckers get coerced into fighting them all, whether they're duped into believing they're fighting a 'just war' or conscripted against their will into fighting an 'unjust war', or more likely a combination of the two, the ordinary fighting man is not the one making the decisions. By all means revile the cowards who start the wars in the first place, lead from behind and lightly make decisions that kill thousands while making sure they themselves stay safe; but I think we diminish ourselves when we refuse to remember the ordinary men who died, regardless of which side they fought on.

Honouring the heroes who win wars simply perpetuates the myth of the 'glory' of war and makes it more likely that more fools will be ready and eager to fight the next; remembering the pathetic and useless deaths of those who fought and died for nothing reminds us of the futility and sheer waste of war, and hopefully will make us think twice before we cheerfully rush off to fight. Note I said remembering, not honouring.
undecidedbout08 at 03:15 PM JST - 24th August

Honouring the heroes who win wars simply perpetuates the myth of the 'glory' of war and makes it more likely that more fools will be ready and eager to fight the next;

I like to think honoring the heroes who won WW2 shows respect for a level of sacrifice few of us in the free democracies of the West today would be capable of.

And of course it also show gratitude for the freedom of speech you enjoy in the UK, I enjoy in the States, and we enjoy on this forum.
TheNewZen at 03:21 PM JST - 24th August

What people forget.

A soldier has NO choice, he has to do as ordered. Having been in the military myself there is NO choice. Try to question an order or refuse to execute one. Good luck.

There were 5 million non-jews killed that were gays, political activists and soldiers that refused orders in german death-camps. Yes, the number is 11 million not 6 million as is usually published.

During WWII there was no voluntary army as now exists in the USA and other countries.

Once you are in the army you are owned by the goverment and need to do as you are told.

More people and would know that if their countries still practiced national service as my country does. We need to do 8 months as we owe it to the country.

And, IMHO, it is a good practice.

Same reason why I can't fault the soldiers for Iraq, etc only their goverments who ordered them do to what they do. I support the soldiers but that don't mean I support their goverment.

HTH.
DanManjt at 01:35 AM JST - 26th August

Cleo

The innocent subjects of the Emperor were tricked by the gangster militarists into war. Or so goes the myth. The Left loves that myth because, if true, it supports the dearly held pacifist tenant that no people would willingly start a war. Since people do not want war, they must have been duped, mislead, or somehow tricked by their wicked and nasty leaders.

Appealing as that belief may be to you, it is not true.

The domestic oppression aside, the fact is that the war was wildly popular within Japan. Most older Japanese reflecting on the events recalled the repeated spontaneous outpouring of joy on every occasion Japan's expansion and aggression. It was this unbridled nationalism on the local level that repeatedly ratcheted up nationalist fervor throughout the land. It was this nationalist fervor that led Imperial Japan into conflict with all of her neighbors just as much, if not more, than the unchecked machinations of the less circumspect amongst the militarists.

It is this nationalism that allowed for the head-chopping contest between two brutish Imperial Army officers to not only happen, but make front page news in Japan.

In short, Japan did not suffer the war; she prosecuted it.
DanManjt at 04:09 AM JST - 26th August

Hello Again Cleo,

I notice you continue to fail to respond to my earlier posts. I will repost:

Since BrightEyes did us the favor of exposing the myth that history is written by the victor, I wonder if you have any comment on the implication of that on your argument -- seeing as how you predicated much of your argument on that canard.
cleo at 09:53 AM JST - 26th August

BrightEyes did us the favor of exposing the myth that history is written by the victor

Sorry, but s/he did no such thing. My original argument still stands. If Japan had won WW2, the people who designed and dropped the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, would have gone down in history as war criminals. Same thing with (eg) the fire-bombing of Dresden if Germany had been victorious. I'm not saying that's the way things should be, or that the wrong side won the war - far from it. Simply that the history we have now is written from the perspective we have. 'History is written by the victor' doesn't mean, as you and Brighteyes seem to want to believe with your literal mindsets, that no one from the losing side ever puts pen to paper or that only official victor historians get to write anything.

the dearly held pacifist tenant that no people would willingly start a war

More like a dearly-held strawman. Tell me what I believe as a pacifist, then shoot down the argument you try to put in my mouth? It's so obvious that it goes without saying, that there are always people ready and willing to start a war. Otherwise there would be none. I did write at some length days ago about the mass hysteria leading up to the invasion of Iraq, which was 'wildly popular' with the vast majority of the US population until things started to go wrong; but the mods seemed to think it was irrelevant to the topic, as the post was removed.

As the New Zen reminds us, soldiers in wartime have no choice. I see nothing wrong in remembering those who died futile deaths in the pursuit of bellicose aims. Doing so soberly is more likely to dissuade people from going to war than honouring those who died 'glorious' deaths in what the historians later paint as a noble cause.
DanManjt at 02:38 PM JST - 27th August

Pish-posh.

Your original statement does not stand. Since no amount of reason seems to affect you, I will bid you farewell.