China changes start date of war with Japan to bolster patriotic education

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 4

    Dan Lewis

    I thought you had to win the war before you could write history...

  • 18

    firelly

    “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

  • 14

    PTownsend

    I thought you had to win

    China sided with the Allies, who using your term 'won' the war. China's role in WW2 has long been given little attention for political reasons. Millions of Chinese (numbers vary depending on source) were killed during the war. (Yes, many were killed by their own people.)

    Once again numbers vary, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops were assigned to China during the war. This limited Japan's ability to use these men in other areas of the Pacific, thereby aiding the Allies.

    China contributed hugely to the Allies 'winning' cause and paid a hugely for doing so.

  • 8

    inkochi

    Maybe Japanese and Chinese history textbook writers should just get a room, or get counselling, or something.

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    Dan Lewis: "I thought you had to win the war before you could write history..."

    Sure hasn't stopped Japan from re-writings its books.

  • 7

    theeastisred

    The term 're-writing history' is not normally used so literally! Joking aside, though, this is worrying. The change of tack post-Tiananmen 1989 to demonise Japan as a way of distracting attention away from domestic problems has caused a lot of problems since then. But with luck, the influence of government propaganda even within the country is a lot weaker these days.

  • -3

    roughneck

    It is still ongoing. Chinese are always at war! Everybody is Kung-fu fighting!

  • 5

    dcog9065

    This isn't such a big change TBH, many historians today consider WW1 and WW2 one big decades long war, with an armistice in the middle, considering how intertwined the two are. The 1931 and 1937 wars could easily be seen in the same context, however it's arguable whether Japan had the same intentions in 1931 as they did in 1937 where they ramped up very violently and aimed for all out conquest

  • 18

    Mike Critchley

    Totally understandable that the powers that be in China...whose biggest fear is the general population actually calling the leadership on their BS...would want people to focus on the war. Instead of...say...the 45 million who died under their hero, Mao.

  • 5

    Fact_check

    North Korea = Hardcore Brainwashing China = Softer Brainwashing

  • 5

    thepersoniamnow

    Fine by me. Why don't we respond by teaching language, maths, science, and social skills better and in a more modern way. That'll show em! ( and you can bet it will in the long run)

  • 11

    donkusai

    Start dates of wars aren't always clear. Why do we say WW2 started with the 1939 invasion of Poland, yet the 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia was clearly a part of the same action. There's a good argument for say WW2 started in 1938. So, simply changing the recognised start date is no biggie. The only thing that leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth is that "the move will also bolster patriotic education"... Changing the date to make it more accurate - great. Changing the date to try to make people more patriotic - umm... no.

  • -1

    Yubaru

    Hey, to folks from Korea the war started in what 1905? Let's not forget either that Japan rarely calls WWII, World War 2. It is more commonly referred to here as the Pacific War,

    Changing the date to make it more accurate - great. Changing the date to try to make people more patriotic - umm... no.

    What's the difference? Anything being taught about history in China is all about patriotism anyway, and Japan is no different either. Abe wants to make Japan into a victim, to make Japanese feel less guilty and ashamed and increase patriotism here too.

    Patriotism is not the problem. Never has been, nationalism, now that's a totally different story.

  • 8

    gokai_wo_maneku

    Teachers in Japan are very leftist. At my high school, teachers were not satisfied with the story of the war in the history books, so they made "supplementary materials" (including pictures) showing what actually happened. Nanjing, 731, etc. I still remember some of the pictures from 20 years ago to this day.

  • -1

    Yubaru

    Teachers in Japan are very leftist. At my high school, teachers were not satisfied with the story of the war in the history books, so they made "supplementary materials" (including pictures) showing what actually happened. Nanjing, 731, etc. I still remember some of the pictures from 20 years ago to this day.

    The key to this remark is at the very end......20 years ago! You will be very hard pressed to find HS, JHS, or University Prof's here willing to go out on a limb and teach anything but the "official" line now.

    Teachers in Japan are or have become very naive, and many far off the right deep end as well. ANd it has been changing over the past 30 years. As there are very few teachers left in the classrooms that had educators themselves who experienced the war , they are all the product of post war pacifism.

  • 4

    Kazuaki Shimazaki

    Though I'm suspicious of the 1984ish approach, Westerners have also argued that the start of the Sino-Japanese war should more fairly be set at 1931.

    I'll also give a rarely given perspective and that moving the beginning to 1931 allows the 1937 series of events to be viewed more objectively while avoiding a lot of thorns for the Chinese.

    Because's here's the rub about starting it at Marco Polo, did it start when a Japanese soldier went missing, or did it start when some Chinese soldier took it upon himself to fire in the general direction of a Japanese exercise?

    And if you take the Japanese version of events, which will be the one reported to their headquarters, is their proposed solution - that the Chinese retreat south of the bridge, fire the responsible commander and restrain overblown anti-Japanese attitudes really that unreasonable from the viewpoint of avoiding further incidents?

    And whether in any case, considering the Nationalists were in a state where they are rapidly improving their ability to fight but really needed at least a year or two more to be ready, whether picking a fight with the Japanese that year was not a totally moronic decision. And the Communists, who always viewed their brief kidnapping of Chiang Kai-Shek as the key that made the Nationalists decide to fight the Japanese ... isn't that persuading the Nationalists to make a choice that's utterly disastrous for the Chinese people?

    Changing the start date to 1931 avoids all these problems.

  • -6

    BertieWooster

    Whichever country it is doesn't make any difference.

    History is "HIS STORY."

    It's just a story, folks.

    Whether it's about the Spanish Armada, Pearl Harbour, Comfort women, Vietnam or 9/11.

    It's either a lie or the truth, WITH BITS MISSING.

  • 2

    Robert Emmett

    Well I must say that's very accommodating of the Chinese authorities... in the age of globalization what calendar best suits China's sense ability...The lunar,Julian,or Gregorian

  • -6

    Udondashi

    That's nice. Japanese people don't need China but China needs technology and money from Japanese companies. Go ahead!

  • 7

    Strangerland

    Japanese people don't need China but China needs technology and money from Japanese companies.

    Japan need Chinese manufacturing as much as China needs Japanese technology.

  • -3

    Jay Que

    The global war against communism began in earnest in 1917 alrhough its noxious roots spread as far back as both the communards in Paris as well as the snake in the Garden of Eden.

  • 1

    Azzprin

    donkusaiJan. 11, 2017 - 07:39PM JST

    Start dates of wars aren't always clear. Why do we say WW2 started with the 1939 invasion of Poland, yet the 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia was clearly a part of the same action. There's a good argument for say WW2 started in 1938

    The invasion of Czechoslovakia was a war between two countries in europe as UK and France failed to act then.

    When Poland was invaded the UK, France, their colonies and allies declared war on Germany spreading from a local war between two countries to a war involving countries around the world.

  • -2

    toshiko

    China can start from Mongolian attacks to Japan. And japaane de two attacks to China then WW II.

  • -10

    Cogito Ergo Sum

    I've always wondered how countries around Japan,hitherto, have let it suppress the true history of events. I am glad that they no longer sit passively and let Japan wax lyrical the evil filthy lies , which they have been using as a bludgeon stick to propagate their " Superiority " against other peoples. As regards Japan , the only TRUE thread through the history of time, is their propensity to tell lies. Unforgivably heavy and shamelessly evil lies, and deceit, is their stock- in-trade.

  • 3

    toshiko

    @COGITO: Have you ever read Any History books in Japan? Mention the name of only one book lies are written you mentioned.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    @gokai

    How is showing "what actually happened," in any way "leftist"?

    You appear to be swallowing the right-wing idea that anyone asking awkward questions is some kind of commie.

  • -1

    Strangerland

    Bolt Tightening jobs does not seem to be a most challenging and difficult task. Japanese companies can open a factory in any country of asia.

    Other Asian countries don't have the same factories, supplies and costs and quality that china does. Which is exactly why my company does our manufacturing there instead of in another country. Why do you think so many Japanese companies do their manufacturing there.

  • 2

    tinawatanabe

    Let's not forget either that Japan rarely calls WWII, World War 2. It is more commonly referred to here as the Pacific War,

    the Greater East Asia War is Japanese name, the Pacific War is the name Americans use.

  • 5

    Shingollira

    And that's how they write a history. Classic move by Chinese government.

  • 2

    Geoff Gillespie

    Tell a lie long and loud enough and it has the peculiar ability to morph into the truth. In reality, the truth is ultimately what we want it to be. Japan has, like every other nation in the world at one time or another, told its fair share of lies. This is really no different...

  • -3

    IloveCoffee

    You mean just like THIS - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-education-idUSKBN13X1UV Where kindergartens in Japan teach children to ''dedicate themselves to the state'' and other pre-war values? Stories conveniently unreported, shocking.

  • 4

    Udondashi

    No news so far, China and korea playing with their victim card it is so tiring!

  • -3

    Cliffy

    @Fact_checkJAN. 11, 2017 - 07:18PM JST

    All countries do that and portrait themselves the right and just side. Keep in mind, Japan also portrait itself as the victim rather than the aggressor in WWI. As one should learn from the "fine" example of G.W. Bush, "might is right".

  • 4

    jj1067

    Chinese communist party had been fighting for long time for sure. But they were not fighting with Japan, they were fighting with the Republic of China, today's Taiwan. And they the communists were weak against the Republic, they were losing. Republic of China was dominating the nation. That's where Japan came and reduced power of the Republic of China, which caused CCP to take control after WWII. After all China became a totalitarian communist nation in 1949 and operated Cultural Revolution in which 20 to 30 million people were killed that is far above deaths by Nazis and nearly equal to what USSR did to their own people. I'm sure this is not on their textbook today in China. The world don't care for those victims too. So..."history" my ass. is the only thing I can say. History today is only politics. Nothing more than that.

  • 1

    chisineko

    Balderdash! The Chinese war with Japan, as I was taught, began October 5 1274 when the YUAN fleet cowardly attacked the forces of So Sukekini at Komodahama beach on the island of Tsushima. I am unaware of any Chinese apologies for this egregious affront. All quality histories should so reflect.

  • 0

    Triring

    Can you actually isolate the conflict strictly between China and Japan without mentioning the other western imperialist nations?

    Basically the US, British, French,etc. all had their hands in the cookie jar including Nazi Germany.

    PRC singling out Japan as the only enemy only fits their present day agenda and not really reflecting what happened in history.

  • 0

    SaikoPhysco

    There's that "Bolster" word again... pretty much used only in Japanese to English translations.

  • 0

    shallots

    Sorry, so, when is it going to start? I would like it to coincide with my vacation if possible.

  • 3

    canadianbento

    Why is it now the "Chinese" are starting to have their heads swell in a enormous direction? Maybe it is because all the "suckers" out there continue to buy the Chinese junk giving the Country a lot of Money. Maybe the non Chinese should say no more junk, buy from other Countries!

  • 1

    Camman80

    Oh that's funny. Any other changes coming?

  • -2

    turbotsat

    The Chinese War Against Japanese Aggression, China’s name for its war with Japan, will be now be 14 years long, from 1931 to 1945, ...

    They should move it up, and historians in general should move the date to 1931. Having it start with the invasion of Poland is Eurocentric. It's not the rule they use for WWI, when they say it started with the first opening of hostilities between two countries.

    Or they could go the other way, and not call them 'World Wars' until the major countries of the western hemisphere got into them. That'd be with Pearl Harbor 1941 for WWII, and for WWI the USA declaration of war vs. Germany in 1917.

    dcog9065: The 1931 and 1937 wars could easily be seen in the same context, however it's arguable whether Japan had the same intentions in 1931 as they did in 1937 where they ramped up very violently and aimed for all out conquest

    Don't know about that, probably it was just they couldn't take the whole country at once.

    Manchukuo was 437,600 sq mi / 1.133 million sq km. It would fall between South Africa and Bolivia, no. 24 and 25 on the list of countries by land area. Japan isn't even close, at around 63 on the list.

    Was watching a USA propaganda film last night from 1943 or so, apparently Japanese officials and academics were describing an invasion of the USA in the 20's and 30's, according to quotes in the movie.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvcE9D3mn0Q

    "Know Your Enemy - Japan" - US Army Signal Corps

    "If We Fight" - Admiral Shinsaku Hirata - March 15, 1930

    The attack on Hawaii must be the first battle in the War of the Pacific Ocean. If one snatches away the enemy's pluck in the first battle, the American navy will certainly become wearied in the wind of panic. Therefore, attack!

    "Arguments Against American Policies", Kawashima Seichiro, 1924

    We can land in Puget Sound, the Columbia River, the vicinity of San Francisco, the vicinity of Los Angeles. But this is possible only after we have destroyed the American fleet.

  • 1

    Tanukisensei

    My Uncle fought as a volunteer to free Imperial China -- not Communist China.

  • 2

    Yubaru

    My Uncle fought as a volunteer to free Imperial China -- not Communist China.

    Do you actually believe that? Is it safe to assume that you think that the IJA invaded Korea to "free" it as well?

  • 2

    Yumster100

    Do you actually believe that? Is it safe to assume that you think that the IJA invaded Korea to "free" it as well?

    Do you actually believe that the IJA invaded Korea at all?

  • -1

    Yubaru

    Do you actually believe that the IJA invaded Korea at all?

    If you want to play semantic games and infer that "occupation" is not "invasion" then you would be right. But I think that the Korean people will disagree.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Korean_Army

  • 4

    Fox Sora Winters

    China changes start date of war with Japan to bolster patriotic education

    Or to put it more accurately: China tries to rewrite history in order to increase anti-Japanese sentiment. That's all this is; a propaganda move designed to foster hatred against Japan and its people. Yet another example of hypocrisy from China; accusing Japan endlessly of escalating tensions in the SCS region, and then doing something like this. You can't change the past, no matter how many lies you tell.

  • 0

    Yumster100

    If you want to play semantic games and infer that "occupation" is not "invasion" then you would be right.

    Nice try in your sad attempt to masquerade your mistake by claiming it as semantic games when the situation was completely different from an "invasion." Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, yes. But not the IJA.

  • 1

    Osaka_Doug

    --Shimazaki

    Westerners have also argued that the start of the Sino-Japanese war should more fairly be set at 1931

    Yes, my understanding too is that most scholars of Asian History and governments in the west (accept that the war in Asia began on September 18, 1931 when the Imperial Japanese Army attacked and occupied Manchuria. Western history scholars use the name Asia-Pacific War to describe both phases of the war; 1931-1945 and 1942 to 1945. Understanding the history of the Asia Pacific region in 1895-1945 provides the understanding of the background of the conflict. Wars just don't happen without some previous events. This is extremely important.

    1895-1931 was a time the world was involved in imperialism, racism, and autocracy.......It is important to teach about the atrocities of war not to put blame but to break the cycle of violence......

  • -1

    Yubaru

    Nice try in your sad attempt to masquerade your mistake by claiming it as semantic games when the situation was completely different from an "invasion." Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, yes. But not the IJA.

    My mistake? Forced colonization, and a brutal rule, enforced under the hand of the IJA? Stop playing games, Korea didnt "invite" Japan to take over, they gave in over fear, more fear of the IJA than their own people.

    You are stuck on semantics, invasions can take place in many different forms, and Japan DID in fact invade and overtake Korea.

    Delegates of both Empires met in Seoul to resolve differences in matters pertaining to Korea’s future foreign policy; however, with the Korean Imperial palace under occupation by Japanese troops, and the Imperial Japanese Army stationed at strategic locations throughout Korea, the Korean side was at a distinct disadvantage in the discussions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Treaty_of_1905

  • -5

    smithinjapan

    Udondashi: "That's nice. Japanese people don't need China but China needs technology and money from Japanese companies. Go ahead!"

    Really? Then why is a lot of stuff in Japan STILL labelled "Made in China" (or mislabelled as Japanese)? And lest we forget the shoppers you invite so you can hate:

    From only January to June in 2014 alone: "The total expense that Chinese visitors spent in this first half of the year even reached 635 billion JPY (5.3 billion USD)." One quarter of all visitors and most money spent in many areas during that period came from China, my friend. YOu need them FAR more than they need you.

    "No news so far, China and korea playing with their victim card it is so tiring!"

    NO ONE plays the victim card more than Japan. No one. YOu guys are even now saying Pearl Harbor was not Japan's fault, on top of claiming to be victims of the other atrocities you deny occurred.

  • -2

    elephant200

    Dr.Sun Yatsan the founder of Nationalist party or K.M.T.was a traitor, he took refugee in Japan in the 1900, he stayed a decade in Japan and lobbying Japanese politician to support his revolution to overthrown the Manchurian empire. And he promised to give up those lands outside the great wall to Japan as reward if he took power. And he made speech of 'pan pacificism' to promote asian unity against western imperialism...

    The above will be narrated in Chinese official views of contemporary history very soon.

  • 0

    tinawatanabe

    Yubaru

    Forced colonization, and a brutal rule

    Japan did not want Korea's annexation as Hirobumi Ito, Japan's 1'st Prime Minister said but assassinated by a Korean. Korea annexation was carried out by the treaty made by USA and Japan, called Katsura Taft Treaty. US and UK did not think Korea could manage themselves and dumped Korea on Japan.

    And you don't seem to know the difference between colonization and annexation. Korea was annexed and became Japan. Koeans had voting right. Japan invested lots of money in Korean for the infrastructure.

  • 0

    theeastisred

    A lot of 'Yushukan' style fiction floating about in the later parts of this thread. Just because China is trying to re-write history, there is no excuse for certain partles in Japan to copy them.

  • -4

    Yubaru

    And you don't seem to know the difference between colonization and annexation. Korea was annexed and became Japan. Koeans had voting right. Japan invested lots of money in Korean for the infrastructure.

    You too? Stuck on semantics? You have no idea what colonization means by your definition here as well. Japan colonized Korea, they sent hundreds of thousands of people to Korea to assimilate the Korean people into the sphere of influence that Japan was building at the time. Japan was not a benevolent overlord, sure it brought a lot of changes to Korea, BUT the goal was to make Korea a permanent part of Japan. They subjugated the people and were brutal in many ways in how they handled the Korean's themselves.

    If you can't accept that, you can'T understand the current problems regarding the sex-slaves issue either. It isn't JUST about the sex slaves, it's about the entire history of Japan trying to wipe Korea and it's culture off the face of the earth.

    Thank God that never happened!

    Korean's themselves called the period of time as the Japanese Colonial Period

    http://koreanhistory.info/japan.htm

    Japan did not want Korea's annexation as Hirobumi Ito, Japan's 1'st Prime Minister said but assassinated by a Korean. Korea annexation was carried out by the treaty made by USA and Japan, called Katsura Taft Treaty.

    It was not a treaty, And Japan had designs for all of Korea and China as well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Katsura_agreement

    Seems to me that the defenders of Japan here have a serious problem with their own history and defend it tooth and nail, and continue to focus on words and not facts.

    FACT; Japan colonized Korea.

  • -1

    Fred Wallace

    And you don't seem to know the difference between colonization and annexation. Korea was annexed and became Japan. Koeans had voting right. Japan invested lots of money in Korean for the infrastructure.

    Sure... all for the benefit of the local populace. Pride aside, people do need to seize and desist from fact revision. It is after all the era of information being literally at your fingertips!!

  • -1

    tinawatanabe

    yubaru

    They subjugated the people and were brutal in many ways in how they handled the Korean's themselves.

    Evidence please. You seem to think that US and other West powers treated their colonies badly, so imagine that Japan did the same. No. Japan did not treat Korea badly.

    Even now Japan treats Korea very patiently. Koreans in Japan have special privileges that they become so powerful in Japan's media, politics, big corporations, colleges, schools, public offices.

  • -1

    Yumster100

    You are stuck on semantics, invasions can take place in many different forms, and Japan DID in fact invade and overtake Korea.

    No, obviously there is a huge difference. I've never heard of a country volunteer itself to become colonized. You seem to think that because Koreans were under IJArule, it automatically qualifies as an invasion which is patently false. I'm not saying IJA did a good thing to annex Korea but the Korean interpretation of being "invaded" is completely wrong. Your explanation as to why Koreans were "invaded" makes no sense, pathetic attempt to deem it as semantics and whine as Japan defenders? when pointing out facts. Talk about whitewashing history! It's fine that they taught you guys that in Korea but I haven't read any text in English that the IJA invaded Korea rather than annexed/colonized as a protectorate.

  • -2

    Yubaru

    Evidence please. You seem to think that US and other West powers treated their colonies badly, so imagine that Japan did the same. No. Japan did not treat Korea badly.

    Typical Japanese response here, obfuscate, (cherry-pick) and deflect from the facts. Because someone else did the same absolves Japan from any guilt.

    Even now Japan treats Korea very patiently. Koreans in Japan have special privileges that they become so powerful in Japan's media, politics, big corporations, colleges, schools, public offices.

    Feeling guilty? These are the comments that some from someone who feels guilty about what they have done and use this to justify the abuse they were responsible for incurring previously.

    Oh and by the way, name ONE Korean living in Japan that works in a public office and is a government official!

    They are in effect stateless people, because the Korea that they and their ancestors were forcibly taken from no longer exist.

  • -4

    Strangerland

    No, obviously there is a huge difference. I've never heard of a country volunteer itself to become colonized. You seem to think that because Koreans were under IJArule, it automatically qualifies as an invasion which is patently false.

    I've always been under the impression it was an invasion, but I've never looked into it too much. What's the difference between an annexation and an invasion?

  • 0

    Yubaru

    I'm not saying IJA did a good thing to annex Korea but the Korean interpretation of being "invaded" is completely wrong. Your explanation as to why Koreans were "invaded" makes no sense, pathetic attempt to deem it as semantics and whine as Japan defenders?

    Why pray tell does Korean history state that they were colonized? Completely wrong? Koreans were not invaded, Korea was colonized. The history is there.

    You seem to think I am DEFENDING the IJA and what it did? Japanese defenders? Talk about a pathetic response. The "benevolent" Japanese? What a joke, that IS pathetic to even consider it.

    I haven't read any text in English that the IJA invaded Korea rather than annexed/colonized as a protectorate.

    So just because YOU didnt read any ENGLISH text, this is Japan by the way, and it's about Korea too, neither English speaking countries as well, but because YOU didnt read it, it didnt happen?

    Talk about having blinders on and refusing to accept history........

  • -1

    Yumster100

    Why pray tell does Korean history state that they were colonized? Completely wrong? Koreans were not invaded, Korea was colonized. The history is there.

    Huh? I've never mentioned that Korea was not colonized.

    You seem to think I am DEFENDING the IJA and what it did? Japanese defenders? Talk about a pathetic response. The "benevolent" Japanese? What a joke, that IS pathetic to even consider it.

    Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Point out where I wrote that. Unless you're thinking of another poster. I said that Japan's action to colonize Korea was NOT good.

    So just because YOU didnt read any ENGLISH text, this is Japan by the way, and it's about Korea too, neither English speaking countries as well, but because YOU didnt read it, it didnt happen?

    Talk about having blinders on and refusing to accept history........

    Um, yes it was between two countries but that doesn't mean it won't be documented in English. So according to you, there are no English text that describes certain events in Asia because it happened between non-English speaking country?

  • -3

    Yubaru

    Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Point out where I wrote that. Unless you're thinking of another poster. I said that Japan's action to colonize Korea was NOT good.

    Putting words in your mouth? Japanese defenders? You did write this here....so.

    Your explanation as to why Koreans were "invaded" makes no sense, pathetic attempt to deem it as semantics and whine as Japan defenders?

    Um, yes it was between two countries but that doesn't mean it won't be documented in English. So according to you, there are no English text that describes certain events in Asia because it happened between non-English speaking country? That is the most dumbest and illogical conclusion yet.

    I see you and TIna took zero time to look at the links I posted, which means to me that you are not interested in learning anything new. The information is there, and it's a very naive person to assume or even think that something hasn't been written in English is an assumption as well that it did not occur.

    It's the same as the Japanese who make the comments that since there is no documentation in Japanese to support the allegations of Nanking, Unit 731, or anything related to the sex-slaves issues, it did not happen. They DEMAND verification in Japanese, for the exact same reasons and more, that you use here. And since all the documentation that there was or was known about was destroyed, there is nothing to back up the history, so it just couldn't have occurred.

    In effect you are saying the same thing.

    Think about that....

  • -1

    tinawatanabe

    Yubaru

    I told you wiki is not evidence. What is your definition of a colony? Koreans were given voting rights because they were Japanese. The father of now President Park of Korea was JIA's high ranking officer. Japan built lots of schools, Seoul Univ. was built by Japan. . There are lots of evidence that SK was part of Japan, not a colony.

    Besides, there were no merit to colonize Korea. They were very very poor, no market, no resorces. Even China did not colonize Korea. just a vassal state.

  • 0

    Geta Gabo

    They could have saved thmselves that last phrase. Who cares about what some nutcracks say about Nanking. Theres a conspiracy theory about just about anything in the world. Are they going to add at the end of an article on science ''religious fanatics maintain God created the world in seven days and scientific endeavor is, at best, worthless.'? Gimme a break!

  • 0

    backscratcher

    What is your definition of a colony?

    Cambridge Dictionary's definition is "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country that is often far away".

  • -3

    Strangerland

    No you didn't.

  • 1

    Yumster100

    What on earth are you talking about. I had an issue with you claiming that Korea was invaded which it did not. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue and then trying to tie that into something that I never stated. My position is not the same as hers because I'm not talking about quality of colonialism. Colonialism occurred but not through an invasion. THAT is my point. Semantics game is when one wants to change from Nanjing massacre to Nanjing incident. Since a massacre is in a technical sense, an incident, it should be "interchangeable." THAT would be semantics. Obviously, that would be a point of contention since the technicalities would render both terminologies correct but the purpose behind the change of usage will be drastically different despite referencing the same act. This case is different since it is not about technicalities. The conclusion of Korea being colonized is not what is being disputed but how it lead up to it. Whether the actions taken to be colonized and how life was like under subjugation and whether other countries colonized as well is also not my concern regarding my debate with you. An invasion is typically considered when a military force attacks another in order to subjugate the other side since they refuse to surrender the attacker's demands. Colonizing Korea was bad but Japan didn't colonize it by invading Korea. That's why I brought up hideyoshi's invasion. If you want another, look at Poland's invasion by the Nazis since that would be closer to our discussion in regards to the timeframe. Notice the similarities?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/InvasionofPoland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JapaneseinvasionsofKorea(1592–98)

    FACT; Japan colonized Korea.

    I never disputed that.

  • -2

    Yubaru

    @tina...

    You want to stay blind, fine, I just feel sorry for people who keep their blinders on. You and others who think and respond as you do are the roots of why the problems between Korea and Japan continue to this day. You obviously just don't get it, and are unwilling to look yourself to find out the other side of the story. You have to have it spoon fed to you, before you will even consider that things were not as you had been led to believe.

    Japanese and it seems you as well, can not admit what occurred, and refuse, downright refuse to accept the facts, and always find excuses to assuage your own feelings.

    It's nearly impossible to consider the notion that what you were taught or led to believe, about the history of the country is wrong.

    To understand and solve any problems, one MUST have the courage to view an issue from all sides, no matter what your own beliefs (right or wrong) may be.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    Yubaru: "It's the same as the Japanese who make the comments that since there is no documentation in Japanese to support the allegations of Nanking, Unit 731, or anything related to the sex-slaves issues, it did not happen. They DEMAND verification in Japanese, for the exact same reasons and more, that you use here. And since all the documentation that there was or was known about was destroyed, there is nothing to back up the history, so it just couldn't have occurred."

    Bingo!

    tinawatanabe: "There are lots of evidence that SK was part of Japan, not a colony."

    You need to look up "colony" in a dictionary and stop pretending that Japan was somehow benevolently just extending friendship to Korea, especially in kidnapping and raping its women for their 'comfort'. It's well proven, you just choose not to see it.

Login to leave a comment

OR
Continuing Education: Apply now! Early-Bird Discount (Summer 2017)

Continuing Education: Apply now! Early-Bird Discount (Summer 2017)

Temple University, Japan CampusContinuing Education / MBA

Japanese Language Program Summer 2017

Japanese Language Program Summer 2017

Temple University, Japan CampusContinuing Education / MBA

Special Offers

Work
in Japan

Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

More in Politics

View all

View all

Time
to Buy
in Japan

Find the perfect home today!

Search