Yasukuni shrine
 

Anyone been? I notice it's reared it's head in the news once again for the usual controversy...

I went last year and found it to be absolutely hilarious - Japanese history seems to have been rewritten more than Heather Mills McCartney's personal past...

Suggesting that nanking was nothing more than Chinese stubborness was one of the highlights of the revisionism going on

Was that revisionist history actually posted on the shrine itself, or in flyers, or what?

Because, in general, I don't have a problem with any country honoring its fallen soldiers, even if they were fighting us at the time. They did their duty to their country, families, and Emperor, and most had no say in war policies or orders for treatment of prisoners, etc.

However, while it's only natural to paint your own country in as good a light as possible, there should be honesty and recognition of facts and events.

In the shrine itself... there were also things such as "America forced Japan into war to save itself from economic depression" and other stupid things along those lines

I seem to vaguely remember it saying something like they were the liberators of Asia from America/Europe hahaha

I should go again and take pictures, it really was pretty stupid...

Interesting... I've never actually discussed history with any of my Japanese friends... I wonder if they believe or are taught this crap?

Mind you, many Americans I've known believe that Japan provoked America into war. It's actually not entirely true. America slapped sanctions on Japan because of their invasion of China. Mind you Japan shouldn't have invaded China in the first place so they are still deserve their "bad guys" tag in history at that time.

Eh, it's more than that, we were afraid of their growing imperial strength. After WWI we put naval tonnage restrictions on them that we didn't put on other allies, but did put on the losers. As you can imagine, Japan was none too pleased with the the allies after that.

the problem of honouring the fallen in this case is that the yasukuni shrine specifically also honours class a war criminals. it would be like having war memorials in germany that specifically mention goering, himmler or to make it even easier hitler.

I didn't talk about it too often on JET... I didn't want to be too confrontational with the teachers in my school. But they did ask me about WW2 a few times, and I then tried to answer their questions as diplomatically as possible. One time, the school's History teacher asked me (through an English teacher acting as interpreter, since she didn't speak any English) about what we were taught in school about WW2. She didn't seem too happy about what I told her, and repeated some of the usual revisionist history, which she seemed to believe. However, after the History teacher left, the English teacher who had been translating for us told me she (the English teacher) knew that the version written in their textbooks wasn't how it all happened, as did many Japanese people.

The 2 main things I tended to be asked were "Do many Americans still hate us for Pearl Harbor?" and "What did you think of the atomic bombs being used?" (Answers: "Not many at all, only a few old folks who were alive in WW2 might still hold any real grudge about that" and "Unfortunate, devastating, but helped end the war faster and with fewer casualties on both sides than if we'd gone ahead with the planned invasion.")

There was enough blame when the dust settled fore everyone. World War II was caused by the treaties, agreements, sanctions, and deals of World War I, which itself was caused by the treaties, agreements, sanctions, deals, arranged marriages, and complicated royal family lines of post-imperialist era. America was not innocent, as we looked to obtain our own colonies and pursue our own imperialist agenda, especially in the pacific ocean, which led us to bump up against Japan's goals. This can still be seen in the fact that Hawaii is a state, and Guam is a protectorate, and we have plenty of other terrritories/protectorates as well in the Pacific.

The Japanese believed that we would come to the aid of our traditional European allies sooner or later, especially as we already considered them a threat. Pearl Harbor was a calculated first strike to end the Pacific War before it started by pretty much destroying the US Navy. Too bad someone in Tojo's cabinet didn't realise America could not be beaten that easily (even if Yamamoto did).

Chew on this: the US reserves first strike now, but is against anyone else having it.

We did not go to war with Japan because we were competing to build an empire and "bumped into each other". America in the 30's was in the midst of the Great Depression, and after Wilson's Folly (aka WW1), America in general wanted nothing to do with empires and European entanglements. We had enough trouble with our dustbowl and stock market crashes and starving, out of work populace struggling to put food on the table. Thats why it took so long for the US to join WW2, and why it took an attack on the US and thousands of dead Americans before the public was convinced WW2 had to really concern them too.

As for the chewy part, every country in the world would strike first if they felt they were in imminent danger of being attacked themselves. America is no different. But I can't remember the last time we actually struck a country without any previous warning or reason. If you're thinking of Iraq, that was a continuation of hostilities because Saddam had not lived up to the requirements in the peace treaty he'd signed after Gulf War 1 (proof of disarmament, regular UN weapons inspections with total and unrestricted access, stop the human rights abuses, stop funding and sheltering terrorists, etc). But while the US was sending food and supplies to England, and were close enough allies that we might have eventually added them in person, we were not nearly so close with China, and didn't make nearly as big a fuss about Japan attacking parts of China as we did over Nazi Germany taking over France and attacking England. Sure, Japan and Germany were officially allies, but not long, close friends with historical ties like the US and England. And even after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, our response was to go fight the Nazis first.

You've missed the fact I was talking about decades of foreign policy. Ten years (29-39) does not reverse what we did since the 1890s, and especially the Great White Fleet. We were certainly building an American empire, and we certainly established our own colonies and protectorates, and intended to take a big chunk out of Pacific trade routes.

I have no problem with reserved first strike, and I'm not even saying I have an issue with American policy demanding we be the only ones with that right. After all, I am American. However, I am also Irish, and as such have bit of perspective from an another source (my family in Dublin, a few of which seem to blame me personally for America's faults). I'm just saying I am aware of how hypocritical it can sound, even if I'm not sure I have a problem with the hypocrisy.

I am not talking about Iraq. As I said above, I think you misunderstood the intent of my statement. I have no problem with the concept of the war in Iraq, I have an issue with its execution. Please note, I was a serving member of the US Military in 2003. I am certainly not opposed to military action, when it is necessary and executed properly. Iraq may have been necessary, although that has been cast into doubt, but it certainly has been a complete and total quagmire. As a veteran, the abuses I see at all levels, not only of Iraqis, but of our own troops (housing, food, pay, health care, etc) is just unacceptable. Saddam Hussein was a mad man, and eventually he needed to be stopped. I'm just not sure we were ready to handle it the way we have tried to. America is now weaker, and our alliances more fractured. I don't have a solution, and the sad part is, no one else seems to have a very good one either.

This just doesn't match up with my own research, and the papers I have written on the subject. Even so, the key concept is not entirely what America was absolutely doing, but rather what Japan believed us to be doing. The naval tonnage treaties are reality, as are the fact that we did hold colonial interests and protectorates even if we claimed to be insular and isolationist. Ten years is not enough to change decades of policy, even if it did cause a fairly severe contraction of that policy. We didn't as much care what was happening to the west of Japan, you're certainly right. But what we did care about was what was happening to the east of Japan, and more importantly, Japan cared what was happening east of it. You can argue America's intentions were not what the Japanese perceived them to be, or you can argue that America was not as attentive to its pacific holdings as it had been due to the Great Depression, but the Japanese military attacked because they believed they were in imminent danger. Whether Tojo and his cabinet agreed with you or not is somewhat immaterial. My gut feeling is that they did, and were able to raise support for the war because their arguments were already widely believed, and the Japanese people in general, believed the evidence I have mentioned led to the conclusion that Tojo postulated as being necessary to justify Pearl Harbor.

This is all a bit off topic, so I'll just wrap it up by saying that I agree with you that Saddam needed to go, and unfortunately the job was very poorly managed, and thank you for your service in the military.

I think I would've answered differently to the question "What did you think of the atomic bombs being used?"

I would've answered "Completely unnecessary to end the war as Japan was all but finished. It was just a matter of time untill they surrendered which means a ground invasion was unnecessary (we'll never know for sure but those in support make a good case), however at the time the United States was aware of the coming Soviet threat therefore the A-bombs were a "warning shot" aimed at the Soviets"

No, not really. I did a 32 page Honors History Thesis on the subject, reviewed tons of sources (both American and Japanese), and I can tell you that a) impressing the Soviets was never the goal, it was at most a secondary or tertiary side effect, b) plans were most definitely underway to invade Kyushu if the bomb had not been developed in time, which would have resulted in millions of casualties, and c) the Japanese were not on the verge of surrender, they felt they could hold out for many more months and were very hopeful the Americans would negotiate a favorable cessation of hostilities rather than invade. Even after the Soviets entered the fight and Hiroshima was bombed, there was 100% unanimous agreement by the Japanese leadership to continue the war. After Nagasaki, it was a 50/50 split, allowing the Emperor to cast the tie-breaking vote to surrender. If just 1 single member had voted the other way, the invasion was set to go ahead, because we didn't have any more atomic bombs (though we'd lied and said we did at the time), and it would take months to build another one.

Frankly, I think it does a disservice to the indomitable will of the Japanese people to say they would have surrendered anyway, without any additional provocation or bombing. They were willing to fight to pretty much the last man (and woman) to protect their homeland and Emperor, and massive defensive efforts had been underway for months to defend the islands. They would not have gone to all that effort of arming civilians, training them, building fortifications, etc if they were planning to surrender soon anyway. That just doesn't make sense.

I am nowhere near your level of expertise on the subject so I won't argue with you. I've simply read otherwise.

A few questions though.... Why did they want to invade when they could simply suffocate the Japanese into surrender? Also... what was the problem with a negotiated cessation of hostilities? Why was a complete, unconditional surrender the goal?

I'm not interested in stroking cultural egos. I'm not really into Nationalism or imagined identities either. In my opinion the Japanese are as human as the rest of us. Whether or not they would've fought to the last man... they would've either surrendered, or fought and lost. It's simply history to me... When it comes to WW2 I've as much emotional investment or consideration of sensitivities as I do when it comes to the adventures of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or the conquest of India by the British Empire. I understand why some old people would... but really people need to get over it along with Nationalism and militarism altogether in my opinion.

I would like to go there..
:d

They could not "suffocate the Japanese into surrender". For a siege to work, the opponent must not be able to replenish its supplies, primarily food. It's true that we'd had a navel blockade around Japan for quite a while, which meant oil, steel, and other imports were stopped from reaching Japan. But they had food, and could keep growing more, meaning we'd never starve them out. At best it would be a stand-off while our men (tired after years of war in Europe and now the Pacific campaign) sat on ships off the coast while the Japanese held the islands. And due to skirmishes, accidents, diseases, etc, an average of 250 American soldiers died each day, even if there was no major battle. Which meant the Japanese could just wait for us to leave or die off.

The Japanese wanted to keep some or all of their empire that remained, and keep the military-led government that had prosecuted the war. Those were 2 things the allies refused to allow. They also wanted assurances that the Emperor would not be executed, which the Americans didn't have a problem with. But the terms of Japanese surrender had been agreed upon by the 3 Allies (US, England, and Russia) at the Potsdam Conference, and what all 3 had agreed was "unconditional surrender, then we'll sort things out after". The US unilaterally accepting a negotiated surrender would have broken the agreement that had been made and make the US look weak, and Russia certainly didn't want to accept conditions. It wanted to extend the war, in fact, because it was attacking the Japanese imperial holdings on the Asian mainland, with the goal of keeping everything it took after the war, just as it had done in Europe. So, letting the war continue a few more months would have meant Russia would gain Manchuria, Korea, and swept right down the coast and taken south-east Asia as well.

Third, if you read about the massive efforts being put into the Japanese homeland defense, and read statements like the following from the Japanese Imperial Headquarters: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.", and knew about the Japanese soldiers refusals to surrender in the entire Island hopping campaign in the Pacific, fighting until practically the last man for worthless little islands that were not even their homelands (Germans and others usually surrendered when it became obvious they were going to lose, resulting in many PoWs, but except for a few cases, the only Japanese PoWs tended to be those who were too injured to keep fighting, but had not died.) The Japanese did not look at surrendering when in a tough or losing position the same way the Nazis and others did, and that was proven time after time in the Pacific, and would have only been more true on their home islands.

Here are the number of Japanese soldiers, the number of PoWs, and the % that fought to the death in each place:

Attu -----2350 ----29 ----98.8%
Tarawa --2571 -----8 ----99.7%
Roi-Namur 3472 ---51 ----98.5%
Kwajalein 5017 ----79 -----98.4%
Saipan 30,000 ----921 ----97%
Iwo Jima 21,000 --1,083 ---95%
Okinawa 92,000 ---7,401 ---92%

Finally, they would not have necessarily "fought and lost". They had more forces on the Japanese mainland than we initially knew about. And even if they did lose, it would have cost millions upon millions of lives, both US and Japanese, including a great many civilians (either as accidents or because they attacked the invaders out of honor. They were training women and children how to fight, how to stick bombs on tanks, etc.)

I see... I suppose I was partially right... but still... I didn't realise how clueless I was about the end of WW2...

Oh right... I was trying to point out the lack of adjectives when I describe my perception of the war rather than making a case for anything. But thanks for clueing me up nonetheless.

(i.e. "They fought and lost" as opposed to "They fought bravely/courageously/with honour etc... but lost." )