Talk:Japanese war crimes

Archives
Nov 2004—Jan 2006 Feb 2006—Oct 2006 Oct 2006-Feb 2007 2007-2008

Japanese Atrocities

The Article name should be changed to "Japanese Atrocities" to assert the severity and complete lack of humanity that the Japanese showed in these events. CPO PiEman August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CPO Pieman (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article isn't treated with the same respect or sensitivity as the Holocaust, judging by the past comments in the discussion archive.

WP:SYN

Much of the text from "Some in Japan have asserted ..." in the Official apologies section is synthesis, and moreover, does not adequately reflect the cited sources.

• "Some in Japan have asserted that what is being demanded is that the Japanese Prime Minister and/or the Emperor perform dogeza, in which an individual kneels and bows his head to the ground" is not backed up by the cited source. The controversy about the dogeza statement should simply be described, without adding the (weasel-worded) OR sentence "Some in Japan have asserted."
  • This is indeed backed up by the cited source - please read it. The relevant passage is included in the reference. Jtwang (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Some point to an act by German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who knelt at a monument to the Jewish victims of the Warsaw Ghetto, in 1970, as an example of a powerful and effective act of apology and reconciliation similar to dogeza, although not everyone agrees." This is not backed up by the source, which does not mention Japan or anyone in Japan or elsewhere pointing to Brandt's act in connection with Japanese war crimes. The cited source simply discusses Brandt.
• The paragraph "Citing Brand's action as an example ..." is again synthesis, because none of the sources cites Brandt as an example or model for the Japanese context (the 18-page Borneman document, which uses Brandt as an example of inter-state apologies, has one passing mention of Japan and Korea).
• If we assert or imply, as the current wording does, that the Brandt example plays a key role in discussions of Japanese war crime apologies, we must bring forth sources that demonstrate that. The current sources do not do that. In the absence of such sources, what we have here may therefore be a novel narrative specific to Wikipedia, rather than reflective of discussions in reliable sources. Jayen466 10:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape vs Comfort Women

Where are the mentions of the mass systematic rapes taht happened during the war? I strongly feel that we should have a section taht details rape as a differing war crime. Thoughts? LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section on "rapes" under "The Crimes" section. You just need to make sure that you provide inline sources for the text you add from reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And, as usual...

My suggestions are completely ignored. I strongly believe the article's name should be changed. --CPO Pieman (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)--

To change the article name, you need to show that the sources out there use the phrase "Japanese atrocities" more often than "Japanese war crimes" to describe the totality of Japan's behavior during the Pacific War. The sources may back you up, you just need to show that. Cla68 (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pacific War...

Anyway, I'm getting to that now. --CPO Pieman (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed lines from Human Experimentation and Biological Warfare

I removed these lines:

The freeing and reducing of these convicted men was a result of a deal between Japan and the United States, as the US Military was interested in using documented research by the Japanese for their own biological weapons program.

..because no citation was provided, and such a potentially controversial subject should not remain in the article without being verified as stated in the Wikipedia template documentation. I also added a citation needed to the previous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmdoman (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Caption Incongruity

The caption under the beheading image says Yasuno Chikao was convicted, but had his sentence commuted. However, if you click through to the picture, the image description says "Yasuno Chikao died before the end of the war."

These seems at odds; I'm not sure what is factually correct with my limited knowledge in the domain.

XyloDawn (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Small Technical Change

I added “West” to the reference “German Chancellor, Willie Brandt”, so it now reads “West German Chancellor, Willie Brandt”. It is technically incorrect to simply refer to Brandt as “German Chancellor”, as Brandt was Head of Government of the BDR at a time when it was only one of two extant German states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.160.130 (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannibalism allegations

Removed allegations to cannibalism from article what was based on hearsay from a alleged diary. The website used as reference does not disclose the name of the author, only identifies him as a “Japanese machine-gunner”. This type of journalism is used for entertainment purposes to add drama to the storyline.

If such a diary exists, and is used for this article, then it needs to be verified and sourced. Jim (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Siffleet photo

I believe this photo is a fake. The shadows do not match up, and the head on the soldier looks out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.58.79 (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The photograph should be sourced, other than "public domain". The description of the photograph gives the illusion of propaganda: “Japanese soldiers showing a hunt trophy…” The photograph and unsourced description should be removed, until it can be properly sourced as “real” and not touched-up. Jim (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I take it you chaps are talking about the photo in the "Mass killings" section, not the one of Len Siffleet, which is properly sourced. In that case it might be helpful to change the heading of this section of the talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I assumed the editor was referring to the “Mass Killing” photograph. If not, my comment is out of text, as the Leonard George (Len) Siffleet photograph is properly sourced. Jim (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

After downloading the Siffleet photograph off Wikipedia, and the original photograph that is available from the Australian War Memorial, there is a noticeable difference. The picture hosted here, on Wikipedia has been altered, somewhat. Maybe that is what the IP editor is questioning? Jim (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese invasion money in the see also section

User:Kasaalan and I are having a disagreement over whether a link to Japanese invasion money belongs in this article's see also section. I contend that it does not because, as far as I am aware and and the basis of what the article states, issuing currency in occupied countries isn't a war crime and there are no clear links between this and Japanese war crimes. This would be an appropriate link in articles such as Japanese occupation of Indonesia and Japanese occupation of Hong Kong which cover Japanese occupation policies, but this article is about war crimes, not occupation policies and having a link to the invasion money confuses the two issues. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mapanique massacre.

Hello I think we have to add an article about "Mapanique massacre". It happened in the Philippines. Can anyone make an article about this>?

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.178.205 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Preventable Famine a war crime?

Since it is mentioned in this article, which is about war crimes. If it isn't, I think it should be removed. --178.30.146.243 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Preventable Famine"-section should be removed, as preventable famine was not a war crime when it happened.

As this is an article about Japanese war crimes, and preventable famine is not a war crime, I see no reason why it should be mentioned in this article, other than that it is related to deaths of people during Japanese rule. The most famous case of preventable famine to date, Holodomor, is not considered to be a war crime, and could first be legally considered to be a crime against humanity (which is not the same thing as a war crime) after the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling the Holodomor as such. As no war law related to preventable famine existed during the period when Japanese-induced preventable famine occured, and no authoritive organ has declared the preventable famine caused by the Japanese to be a war crime or a crime against humanity, I consider that this section does not belong into this article. If someone disagrees, please say so here. If nobody objects my proposition with arguments related to whether or not preventable famine in itself can be considered as a war crime, I will remove the section from this article. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds fair, but perhaps a link in the lead should redirect to an article on Japanese crimes against humanity, explaining that they acted in ways viewed now as immoral on many instances but were not prosecuted for this. This is especially relevant since there is an argument that many war crimes were omitted at the hague because the allied powers had used them in the conflict.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is

Bloated. Segments of it that cover sections that are less important carry what I see to be undue weight. For example, historians that give dramatically low estimates of total casualties from Japanese war crimes are given significant weight, while those who give high estimates (or claims) are completely ignored (such as the Chinese government). Additionally, more weight is given overall to comfort women then is given to killings (from a word count perspective). There has to be a way to improve this...--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

German comparission

The comparison with Germany is non-neutral language. Germany was chosen because its behavior was the one expected by the articles editor. For instance, why not compare with one of several other countries which also did not consider as truth (and schoolbook material) all historic accusations against it?

This article should report the allegations of Japanese war crimes and how they are interpreted by different parts. It should not, however, condemn or support any of the visions about it.

I for one, believe the facts talk for themselves, and the childish finger-pointing in the article actually hurts a good cause. --Damiens.rf 16:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a relevant comparison and a suitable summary of section 5 of the article. Your calling my contribution "childish finger-pointing" does not further the article nor discussion of what is suitable. Furthermore, my contribution does not condemn nor support anything, it merely points out the different responses of German officials vs. Japanese officials.

Anyways, I am okay with removing the direct comparisons with Germany as long as we restore more of the summary of section 5. Jtwang (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is a comparison with Germany more relevant than a comparison with Pakistan, Italy, U.S., or Senegal? The answer is: Because the Germans did what you want the Japanese to do.

Do U.S. books consider the Bombing of Hiroshima an atrocity, or they "whitewash" it (to use your extremely biased terms)? Do the Americans formally apologized for that? Do American presidents still visit WWII "heroes" tombs?

Please, do not take this as an attack or disapproval of America. Many other equally useful examples can be gathered. The American's are just more well known and common knowledge appealing. --Damiens.rf 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could be extra verbose and duplicate the article at Japanese history textbook controversies here. That was my purpose in linking to it. I don't think it improves the article here to add qualifiers that international observers consider the Japanese history textbooks whitewashed, or provide specific examples - that is what the link is for. Personally I think the German comparison strengthens the article because of the clear double standard. Without it, I agree that my contribution seems more biased as there is no international standard that the Japanese reaction is compared to. I'm open to suggestions for how to incorporate this more elegantly.

The quote from Abe in the body of this article and in the Washington Post article is "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion." Nowhere does he claim there is no indisputable proof, he claims there is no evidence at all. Thus I have reverted your edit. Jtwang (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese history textbook controversies does not determines there is a whitewash on those books. It reports on the controversy. This article, likewise, shouldn't take that as a given fact.

The German comparison strengthens the pov in the article. If a different pov were being pushed, another country would have to be as standard. My point is that we should only report the facts without comparing it to any arbitrarily chosen standard.

He claims there are no evidence of wrongdoings, and not that there were no wrongdoings. While we would agree this was most likely a bad faith wording by him, we can not say it differently in the article.

What language would you suggest re: the history textbooks? I am simply using the language at Japanese history textbook controversies. My point is that you could source the "whitewash" adjective here to the international observers, but I think this is redundant with Japanese history textbook controversies and does not add to this article.

Point taken on the German comparison / facts. I concede this point.

Regarding Abe, would you prefer the wording Shinzo Abe have denied evidence that atrocities occurred despite first-person confessions from Japanese soldiers. - I am okay with that. I just disagree with your use of "indisputable" as he is talking about evidence in general, not just indisputable evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtwang (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there's a controversy, we should attribute the "whitewash" (or any other interpretation) to its authors, either we agree with them or not. It's not neutral coverage to report on the Japanese denial while taking the accusations as facts. We should simply report on both sides views and the reader will make his/her mind.

I'm think Shinzo Abe have denied evidence that atrocities occurred. is great, but following it with "despite..." is pushing our point of view. The article relates those first person confessions. We need not confront them with Abe's words this way. --Damiens.rf 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon rereading the lead I am inclined to agree with you. I've reworked my contribution, how do you feel about it now? Jtwang (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jtwang, you're such a good editor to work with that I almost feel bad for "correcting" you so much. Of course I understand I'm not really correcting anything, since I'm in no special condition for doing so. That said, is still beleive "controversially downplay" is non-neutral. First, a controversy involves more than one party. Describing one of them as controversial is exposing one's viewpoint. Wouldn't you agree that "Some Japanese textbooks controversially..." is as neutral as (say) "Some international observers controversially discredited some boooks...".

Second, "downplay" assumes the books tell less than what they should. On the Japanese nationalists point of view, what the books do is not a downplay.

I believe it could be fixed making the lead to report on the fact that some analysts accused some books of downplaying Japan's role on the war... (accuse may not be thebest word). --Damiens.rf 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We could simply replace controversially with allegedly - this with the citation and link to the history book article are sufficient IMHO. I think the best model for this section is Holocaust denial (at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law). Jtwang (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits need to be made with regard to the following paragraph

This paragraph need to be edited a little:"Japan officially maintains that no international law nor treaties were violated. Many leaders in the Japanese government, including former prime ministers Junichiro Koizumi and Shinzo Abe, have prayed at the Yasukuni Shrine, which includes convicted Class A war criminals in its honored war dead. Some Japanese history textbooks controversially downplay Japanese actions in World War II,[11] and Japanese officials as high as prime minister Shinzo Abe have denied that atrocities occurred."

First of all most politicans in Japan that have prayed at the Yasukuni Shine are members of the Liberal Democratic Party which has more trouble adknowlaging Japans war crimes than anything. Second of all although Japanese textbooks have in the past downplayed Japans involvement in war crimes most textbooks these days contain referances that to these war crimes. Third although Shinzo Abe has denied the war crimes Shinzo Abe is just one person. There are many politicans in the Social Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan that adknowlage this. I thought that it's only fair to point these out for discussion before I make any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no opposition to the above change. Please comment if your still against it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a few other modifications I'd like to make that look questionable. First of all this article mentions that the Japan offically claims that no international laws were broken. After a bit of research i've heard that the country's government does indeed adknowlage some of it's wrong doing as mentioned here:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/q_a/faq16.html#q8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre#Japan

I also would like to make an edit mentioning the while textbooks in Japan do referance the atrocities some are mentioned more then others. The one aspect that is mentioned in detail the most is the Nanjing Massacre. I know this because in 2005 China was angry at Japan for allowing a textbook that only breifly refreances the Nanjing Massacre. This means that all other books do go into detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_anti-Japanese_demonstrations#Nanking_Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

None oppose? Alright, changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"J-Pop" Redirect

Why the term "J-Pop" redirects here, I have no idea. The result of bigotry/someone with a sick sense of humor, I suppose. --02:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.148.191.6 (talk)

Someone edited J-pop to redirect here and bots fixed resulting double redirects. I fixed them. Thank you. --Kusunose 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese war criminals

On 10th March 1046 I flew four men from Kallang to Singapore for war trials: Lt. Gen. Watari Sakon(he got 10 years) Col. Terui Yuji (Same) andtwo thers I can't trace. Perhaps you can, They are Col. Komazawa Sadayasu and Col. Yano.

L. Malcolm Cloutt (62 Sqdn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.73.136 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

requesting another change

Contary to popular belief textbooks that are used in Japanese high school do referance the atrocities that Japan commited during World War 2 with an exception being comfort women as mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#Japan

However the opening section of this article mentions that textbooks only briefly referance the atrocities. It should be noted that I have reason to believe that textbooks are required to offer more than just referances depending on the atrocity. For example the 2005 textbook was massively critisized for only briefly referancing the Nanjing Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_anti-Japanese_demonstrations#Nanking_Massacre

I believe that untill more information is available about what is used in textbooks the referance to Japanese textbooks only briefly referancing the atrocities should be removed. I will wait for a response of information. If don't recieve it or if no one wishes for the textbook claim to remain then I would like to remove it if it's ok. Just untill more information is availible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to cite more than wiki pages to make your point. Especially as the claim is cited itself. The textbook reference in the text is cited to an actual source. You cannot counter it with wiki page references (not counted here as RS) or your own personal feelings/logic (original research). This is not intended to offend. What I would recommend you do is look for reputable sources (japanese nationalistic publications are not likely to be accepted...) that make your point. Until you do, please do not remove the properly cited claim.204.65.34.246 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to mention that the sino-japanese war started in 1931 with the Mukden incident, and the occupation of Manchuria, not in 1937 as given here. I will look for references but if you date the war as 1937 a lot of incidents involving japan would be left out ...Mummywolf09 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC) There is a wiki source for this, a well-researched article on the "Mukden Incident". I dont understand dating the sino-japanese war from 1937 rather than 1931; either it is a typo error or perhaps Manchuria is not counted as China. In either event, Japanese soldiers attacked chinese ones and in this way brought about a change of government in Manchuria. It is my belief that the war would be dated from 1931 by Chinese sources. It is commonly mentioned that the Chinese had been at war for 10 years before ww2 broke out. Any comment / Mummywolf09 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)