Talk:Anti-Japanese sentiment in China

Is DOA donation or reparation

Quote from the article.

"Although Japan never paid formal war reparations to China, it did give ODA (official development assistance), amounting to 3 trillion yen (30 billion USD) in grants and loans. In Japan, this was perceived as a way of making amends to China for past military aggression. Japan is, in fact, China's largest financial donor, giving more than all other governments combined. According to some estimates, Japan accounts for more than 60 percent of China's ODA received."

How could DOA "was perceived as a way of making amends to China for past military aggression", which means DOA should be considered a debt Japan owed to China for its aggression and paid in the form of a loan, and at the same time "Japan is, in fact, China's largest financial donor." Could debt be paid as donation? How can Japan be both a debtor and a donor at the same time. Indeed Japan is a debtor not a donor.Redcloud822 04:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, and this is just a POV, I think the Japanese government started ODA partly because of the perceived direct economic benefits Japan can enjoy from developing China. Therefore, ODA should not be treated solely for the purpose of renumerating wartime transgressions. 350 billion vs. 30 billion. Where did you get the 350 billion estimate? How does the number compare to USSR, France etc. received individually from Germany?

And another issue that's hard to compare is the obvious slant for European countries (due to developed status then) with Asian countries in dealing with a fair leverage table for renumeration with Japan. Many Asian countries were still colonies and lacked the developed governmental infrastructure, representation to deal with Japan. The USA and partly, China (KMT) had more say on these issues. However, it seems that JiangJieshi did not demand renumeration.

Basically, imho, for the purposes of PR China, the issue currently is self-development and developing cultural, political and economic ties with other Asian countries and also Europe to have a better leverage against Japan in dealing with WW2 issues. We have already seen KMT and CCP have made progressive moves (visiting China), so a united Chinese front (at least in terms of accepting and promoting a shared heritage) would aid this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.80.108 (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How much reparation Japan has been forgiven

The article provides a detailed account of Japanese ODA to China, but failed to account for the amount of reparation China forgave Japan. Even though accurate estimation of Japanese damage to China has been given, one can look into comparable cases.

1) Germany has paid $61.8 billion by 1998 for approximately 6 million Jews murdured and property damage with no end in sight. [1]

2) The US government paid $20,000 for decedents of every Japanese American being sent to internment.[2]

Chinese casualty during Japanese invasion is estimated at 35 million. All major Chinese cities were heavily bombarded and razed to the ground, Shanghai, Nanjing, Chengdu, Chongqi, Wuhan, Hongzhou, etc... So a rough estimate of Japanese reparation, by German standard the sum should be around $350 billion, by American standard the sum should be $700 billion.

Total Japanese ODA to China is around $30 billion, of which 90% is low interest loans China has to repay; only less than $3 billion is actual aid. Japanese ODA to China has been widely reported by Japanese media. There were complains about China not showing graditude to Japan. In 1998, Chinese PM, while on a visit to Japan, publicly thanked Japanese for ODA. ODA is also used by Japanese government to pressure China's policy directions. When was the last time Isaerel's foreign policy choice became a condition for Germany reparation? When was the last time a Japanese PM expressed graditude for China's forgiveness of reparation, which is more than 10 times of Japanese loan (ODA), or ever? Redcloud822 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Redcloud, your comments are totally POV. If you want these issues incorporated into the article, you should add a paragraph concerning questions that have been raised about the 'generosity' of the Japanese and the fact that Japan is putting a possiibly unjustified spin on its ODA. Your comments suggest that you yourself are totally anti-Japanese and want to rewrite the article to justify anti-Japanese feelings. The article should not be trying to show how bad the Japanese are, it should be trying to enlighten people about the issue of anti-Japanese sentiment.

Bathrobe 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Daveswagon 05:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments aside. If you have problem with the facts, you can provide your data. I don't appologize for my opinion. Just as you are entilted to yours too. Redcloud822 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "opinion", it is about writing a decent article. What you're writing (whether with or without facts or data) would be highly suitable in an article entitled "Why I hate the Japs". But this article is about anti-Japanese sentiment in China. You can include all your facts and figures, but whatever you say should be written from the point of view of the topic of the article.

For instance, try writing: "Japan and China have quite different perceptions of the issue of war reparations, giving rise to anti-Japanese feelings in China. Japan frequently cites the huge amount of ODA that it has given to China. From the Chinese point of view.....". Or "Japan's slowness in dealing with the cleanup of weapons left in China after the war has contributed to anti-Japanese feelings...." These are explanations of why anti-Japanese feeling is still strong. Simple Japan-bashing is not an explanation of anti-Japanese sentiment. Can't you see the difference?

Bathrobe 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite the completely misleading section Redcloud added recently. I don't know if I've made a good job of it as I had trouble following the facts.

Redcloud's edit has serious problems:

He starts the section "Contemporary Issues" with the extremely broad statement: "Japan has rejected all compensation demands of China origin up until July 2007". However, the sources he cites relate only to chemical weapons. How does he extract the 'fact' that "Japan has rejected all compensation demands of China origin" from a couple of sources relating only to chemical weapons? The insinuation implied by 'of China origin' is also puzzling. Does Redcloud mean that Japan is agreeing to compensation demands from other countries but not from China?

Redcloud's edit is incorrect even if we confine ourselves to chemical weapons. From a reading of the sources cited, we find that: "Tokyo has agreed to pay 300 million yen (US$2.7 million; €2.2 million) in one-time compensation to the Qiqihar victims" (IHT article) and "In a separate 2003 lawsuit, the Tokyo court awarded $170,400 to Chinese civilians harmed by Japanese chemical weapon leaks" (Jurist article). If Tokyo has agreed to pay some compensation, what basis is there for saying that "Japan has rejected all compensation demands of China origin up until July 2007"? Redcloud's claim is patently false.

Then there is the statement that Japan's delay in clearing the weapons is "a serious violation of Chemical Weapons Convention". There is no doubt that Japan's delay is undesirable and subject to criticism. But to simply allege that it is a "serious violation" is completely POV. Has the Chinese government stated that the Japanese delay is "a serious violation of Chemical Weapons Convention"? If so, try writing: "China regards the Japanese five-year extension of the Convention as a serious violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention". Or come up with other sources that are critical of Japan. As it is, the allegation of a "serious violation" made in the article represents Redcloud's personal viewpoint and nothing more.

I'm afraid that Redcloud's edits and the so-called "facts" that back them up are so one-eyed that it is hard to take them seriously.

Bathrobe 06:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

China has received about 15,918,423,400 dollars (not including ODAs), mostly based on San Francisco Peace Treaty 14.a.2.:

"(a) It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations. Therefore, 2. (I) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (II) below, each of the Allied Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property, rights and interests of (a) Japan and Japanese nationals, (b) persons acting for or on behalf of Japan or Japanese nationals, and (c) entities owned or controlled by Japan or Japanese nationals, which on the first coming into force of the present Treaty were subject to its jurisdiction. The property, rights and interests specified in this subparagraph shall include those now blocked, vested or in the possession or under the control of enemy property authorities of Allied Powers, which belong to, or were held or managed on behalf of, any of the persons or entities mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) above at the time such assets came under the controls of such authorities."

PROTOCOL CONCERNING PROLONGATION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE PROTOCOL ANNEXED TO THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN JAPAN ANDTHE REPUBLIC OF CHINA IV.: "Japanese Delegate: It is my understanding that since the Republic of China has voluntarily waived the service compensation as stated in paragraph 1 (b) of the Protocol of the present Treaty, the only benefit that remains to be extended to her under Article 14 (a) of the San Francisco Treaty is Japan's external assets as stipulated in Article 14 (a) 2 of the same Treaty. Is it so? Chinese Delegate: Yes, it is so."

See ja:日本の戦争賠償と戦後補償 for more info if you can read Japanese. Hermeneus (user/talk) 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hermeneus, I fail to see the relevance of this. Are you arguing that China has waived its claim for war compensation, therefore anti-Japanese sentiment shouldn't exist?

The talk page is not a forum for arguing whether Japan should give compensation or not. It is a forum for discussing anti-Japanese sentiment, and how the article should best describe this.

Bathrobe 09:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I said that China has already received a significant amount of compensation under San Francisco Peace Treaty 14.a.2. before it waived claim for further compensation in 1952 (and 1972). If you want to note the alleged lack of compensation from Japan as a cause of anti-Japanese sentiment in China, then this fact also should be noted in the article. Hermeneus (user/talk) 10:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed a section that Redcloud inserted comparing Japan's ODA with reparations made by Germany. The paragraph extrapolated a figure that Japan should have given in ODA. It's hard to see why a paragraph like this is in the article, except to argue against the case that Japan has been generous with ODA. I would have liked to rewrite it so that it fits into the article naturally, but I gave up and scrapped it instead. On a personal note, living in Mongolia where anti-Chinese sentiment is so intense that many Chinese are afraid to go out at night, it is interesting to watch these editors (most likely Chinese) who are so motivated by anti-Japanese sentiment that they try to turn the article into an anti-Japanese screed.

Bathrobe 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a generally neutral approach to an article. Simply put, you can create new articles or subsections called "Chinese opinions of justifications on Anti-Japanese sentiment in China" and something about the Japanese side. You definitely should give the full image, not labels of this dense issue in an article. You should not censor Redcloud completely with your opinion of a perfect neutral article. Comparisons in terms of renumerations should definitely be added as well as background information (which I think is why you removed Redcloud's revisions).

This brings another interesting topic. It may be esoteric for the common layman, but comparing Germany and Japan's approaches to their former victims (countries and ethnicities) during the Post-war to modern periods would be an interesting article.

And further, even if you consider some people's revisions to have a pro-China slant, you should rather work with the new information provided and remove it if and only if it is completely trivial, non-factual or blatantly biased.

This article is about Anti-Japanese sentiment in China, and if we talk about sentiment, it is not clearly defined.

"The Last Emperor"

"while scenes of the Nanking Massacre were censored from the Japanese theatrical release of The Last Emperor."

Please confirm above. I saw "The Last Emperor" in Japan and the scenes of the Nanking Massacre was included.

Tsumugi 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-anything sentiment, like this, exist for one and only one reason, and that is government propaganda. Also everything in this article is hearsay, conjecture and personal opinion. It should be deleted from Wikipedia as it is not note-worthy. Why does Wikipedia allow all these passionate personal opinions to exist in what is an online encyclopedia? leveni 2 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.78.20 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)