Japan's Kono Statement revisited

[WJHopwood]

Were the WWII Japanese "comfort women"really forced
to be the sex slaves of the Japanese troops? Or were
they voluntary professional prostitutes? Those seem to
be the principal questions raised by an official Japanese
report released yesterday and described in a New York
Times article titled "Japanese Report Casts Doubt on
Admission of Wartime Sexual Coercion."

The report re-opens the argument in Japan about
whether or not a 1993 Japanese apology to women who
worked in military brothels as sex providers for Japanese
soldiers in WWII was justified. Mostly Koreans, they have
been euphemistically known as "comfort women." Japan's
belated apology to them was named the Kono Statement
after Japan's chief cabinet secretary at the time it was
issued.

The Kono Statement was the first official admission by
Japan that hundreds of women had been forced into
sexual roles by the wartime Japanese army. From the
date of its release the Kono apology has been
controversial. Japanese nationalists have consistently
held that the women were prostitutes, not the innocent
victims they claim to have been, that the Kono Statement
should never been issued and should now be retracted.

It has also been claimed by Japanese who oppose the
apology that only Japan has been criticized for practices
common to all belligerents in time of war. Also that the
Kono Statement was primarily issued as an attempt to
satisfy persistent diplomatic charges by South Korea that
Japan had not displayed enough contrition for its "colonial
and wartime past."

In February this year, the Japanese government appointed
a group of scholars to review the background of the Kono
Statement to determine the circumstances under which it
was initiated. The apparent expectation being that the
review board would find enouh proof that the apology was
appropriate and that the controversy over the role of the
"comfort women" would fade quietly into history.

But that didn't happen. Instead of the issue fading away, the
review board's findings have re-opened old arguments and
raised new doubts about the role actually played by the
" comfort women" and whether the need for an apology had
ever been necessary. The report has also stirred up fresh
resentment in South Korea whose Foreign Minister is quoted
as saying that the review board's findings are "contradictory,
as well as pointless and unnecessary."

Although the current Japanese Prime Minister has pledged
that Japan will stand by its Kono Statement of apology to the
wartime "comfort women," the question remaining is whether
the Japanese government will continue to do so? Stay tuned.

WJH

[Michael Emrys]

Japanese nationalists have consistently held that the women were
prostitutes, not the innocent victims they claim to have been, that
the Kono Statement should never been issued and should now be
retracted.

I don't know, but taken with a lot of actions undertaken in Japan in the
last few decades, this smacks of a "we never did anything wrong" attempt
at exculpation and denial. It seems that Japan, or at least a segment of
its leadership, is determined to commit a large effort into creating a
cultural and historical blind spot in their own nation. This is
comparable with an attitude I encountered growing up in the American
South where some people maintained that Negroes were better off as
slaves. I don't see this as ending well.

Michael

[Mario]

Post by Michael Emrys

Japanese nationalists have consistently held that the women
were prostitutes, not the innocent victims they claim to
have been, that the Kono Statement should never been issued
and should now be retracted.

I don't know, but taken with a lot of actions undertaken in
Japan in the last few decades, this smacks of a "we never did
anything wrong" attempt at exculpation and denial. It seems
that Japan, or at least a segment of its leadership, is
determined to commit a large effort into creating a cultural
and historical blind spot in their own nation. This is
comparable with an attitude I encountered growing up in the
American South where some people maintained that Negroes were
better off as slaves. I don't see this as ending well.
Michael

A FB friend of mine said she was never taught in school about
japanese war crimes.

Only years later she knew what really happened.


But also in Italy for decades nobody was taught in school of
aggressions and crimes.


I suppose in every country there are problems in teaching what
one isn't proud of.

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Mario
I suppose in every country there are problems in teaching what
one isn't proud of.

Good point. I don't suppose there are many classrooms in the US where
one hears of war crimes almost routinely committed against Japanese
soldiers.

Michael

[WJHopwood]

...I don't suppose there are many classrooms in the
US where one hears of war crimes almost routinely
committed against Japanese soldiers.

I'm curious about your comment above which implies
that there were war crimes committed "almost routinely"
by American soldiers against Japanese soldiers in WWII
which have since been deliberately hushed up.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps give some
examples. What was done, where, when did they happen,
and which U.S. force or forces committed them?

WJH

[Paul F Austin]

Post by WJHopwood

...I don't suppose there are many classrooms in the
US where one hears of war crimes almost routinely
committed against Japanese soldiers.

I'm curious about your comment above which implies
that there were war crimes committed "almost routinely"
by American soldiers against Japanese soldiers in WWII
which have since been deliberately hushed up.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps give some
examples. What was done, where, when did they happen,
and which U.S. force or forces committed them?

Paul Fussell, in _Wartime_ talks about US troops despoiling Japanese
bodies, to the point of preparing and sending Japanese skulls home.
That's distasteful but no war crime. More seriously, Fussell talks about
American troops refusing the surrender of Japanese troops but these
occasions were in or near the battlefield, after Japanese troops reneged
in surrender offers, an almost universal prelude to "take no prisoners"
polices in every army. After battle, formal surrenders of Japanese
troops occurred in normal fashion and Japanese POWS were treated
according to the norms of The Law of Land Warfare. When word of the
treatment of Allied POWs by the Japanese spread, especially after the
liberation of the Japanese POW camp at Cabanatuan City, PI, American
policy against Japan hardened even further.

Paul

[Alan Meyer]

Post by WJHopwood
...
I'm curious about your comment above which implies
that there were war crimes committed "almost routinely"
by American soldiers against Japanese soldiers in WWII
which have since been deliberately hushed up.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps give some
examples. What was done, where, when did they happen,
and which U.S. force or forces committed them?

As I understand it, killing soldiers after they were captured occurred
in every army, including the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. It was most
pronounced after heavy casualties had been taken.

See the following Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_prisoners_of_war_in_World_War_II#Allied_attitudes

I know I've read about this problem in the Pacific but I can't remember
specific citations. However I am currently reading Rick Atkinson's
volume 2 of his "Liberation Trilogy" about the war in Sicily and Italy.
He mentions several cases in Sicily, including one where a soldier
shot 35 or so prisoners that he was escorting to the rear. IIRC, the
murders were reported to higher ups and the soldier was taken out of the
ranks and sent back to Africa, but neither he nor anyone else was
prosecuted.

Back in the 1960's I had a summer job in Washington. My boss was a
former captain in the U.S. Army who fought in the front lines in France
and was wounded there. He told me that he always wanted to take
prisoners so he could send them back for the intelligence people to
interrogate but he couldn't get his men to take prisoners. They always
killed them.

I've also read that, after the news about SS murder of prisoners at
Malmedy got around, any surrendering SS soldiers were routinely shot.
If they were found among a group of surrendered Wehrmacht soldiers who
were to be sent back, they were separated out and shot.

The Wikipedia article cites a written order from the headquarters of the
328th infantry regiment dated 21 Dec 1944 stating that SS or paratroops
will be shot on sight.

I think some countries have better records than others on the treatment
of prisoners. Germany, Japan, and the USSR probably had the worst
records of the major powers. They were all countries where human life,
even on their own sides, was not highly valued by the political or
military leaderships. And in the cases of Germany and Japan, enemies
were considered inferior or even sub-human. In the Pacific, most men on
both sides held highly racist views of their enemies.

Most soldiers were ordinary men who grew up in moral households but they
were young, not necessarily well educated, and had never had to think
much about issues of life and death. Exposure to the violence of war
was a shock. It would be surprising if most of these men continued to
see the enemy as they saw themselves and their comrades. It would be
surprising if they didn't consider all of the enemy as at least
partially guilty of the atrocities that some committed. It would be
surprising if they could learn to kill the enemy on sight on the
battlefield but turn those intense emotions off and not feel like
killing them because they dropped their guns and raised their hands.

There were plenty of documented instances of murder and other atrocities
by Americans in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Why would WWII be
different?

We can understand what happened and struggle against the tendencies in
current and future wars. But we won't succeed in reducing violence
against prisoners unless open our eyes fully and try to understand what
happened.

Alan

[yauming]

Post by Alan Meyer
Back in the 1960's I had a summer job in Washington. My boss was a
former captain in the U.S. Army who fought in the front lines in France
and was wounded there. He told me that he always wanted to take
prisoners so he could send them back for the intelligence people to
interrogate but he couldn't get his men to take prisoners. They always
killed them.

I'm actually amazed that any of the German troops that surrendered
at Normandy (particularly at Omaha) weren't killed outright. If the tables
were turned the Nazis wouldn't have been so compassionate.

I do know that if I was one of US troops and I had just seen half of my
platoon mates and friends slaughtered on the beach I would have
been sorely tempted and probably would have executed any POWs
that came under my control.

Just think - half of your friends or more - killed. And the perpetrator
surrenders because he's run out of bullets in his MG34.
You'd have to be a saint not to put a bullet into him.

[Roman W]

Post by yauming
Just think - half of your friends or more - killed. And the

perpetrator

Post by yauming
surrenders because he's run out of bullets in his MG34.
You'd have to be a saint not to put a bullet into him.

Well he wasn't killing your friends out of personal enmity, but for
the same reason you tried to kill him or his friends - because he was
ordered to. The fact that soldiers take it so personally and not as
"a grim business they forced us to carry out" speaks volumes about
the efficiency of the military training.

RW

[yauming]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:50:48 -0400, yauming <>
Well he wasn't killing your friends out of personal enmity, but for
the same reason you tried to kill him or his friends - because he was
ordered to. The fact that soldiers take it so personally and not as
"a grim business they forced us to carry out" speaks volumes about
the efficiency of the military training.
RW

I think Clausewitz wrote that if the defenders didn't surrender
and fought to the bitter end - no quarter or leniency should
be shown.

I also recall one French? officer telling Eisenhower? that the
Germans would not surrender until they ran out of bullets
and then throw up their hands and blame it on Hitler.

The Germans were luck D-Day succeeded. I don't think
the Soviets would have treated them so kindly unlike the
British and Americans occupying troops.

Actually it is amazing that any German troops that were
captured by the Soviets survived their time
in captivity.

Sorry for the OT.

[Mario]

Post by yauming

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:50:48 -0400, yauming <>
Well he wasn't killing your friends out of personal enmity,
but for the same reason you tried to kill him or his friends
- because he was ordered to. The fact that soldiers take it
so personally and not as "a grim business they forced us to
carry out" speaks volumes about the efficiency of the
military training.
RW

I think Clausewitz wrote that if the defenders didn't
surrender and fought to the bitter end - no quarter or
leniency should be shown.

That was in Napoleon times, not 1944.

Later came many international treaties signed by all powers
including USA and UK binding them on how to treat POWs and
enemy soldiers that surrend.

Post by yauming
I also recall one French? officer telling Eisenhower? that
the Germans would not surrender until they ran out of bullets
and then throw up their hands and blame it on Hitler.

So what? Isn't that their duty? Didn't French and British and
American soldiers do the same thing?

Post by yauming
The Germans were luck D-Day succeeded. I don't think
the Soviets would have treated them so kindly unlike the
British and Americans occupying troops.

So what? Bad Soviet behaviour doesn't justify bad US behaviour.

Post by yauming
Actually it is amazing that any German troops that were
captured by the Soviets survived their time
in captivity.

Considering how Germans treated Soviet POWs...
Considering that UK and USA never had to suffer German
occupation...

Post by yauming
Sorry for the OT.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Mario

Post by yauming

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:50:48 -0400, yauming <>

I think Clausewitz wrote that if the defenders didn't
surrender and fought to the bitter end - no quarter or
leniency should be shown.

That was in Napoleon times, not 1944.
Later came many international treaties signed by all powers
including USA and UK binding them on how to treat POWs and
enemy soldiers that surrend.

And Sun Tze wrote you should make an effort to accept surrenders; makes it
less like the enemy fights to the bitter end. Something both sides
ignored on the Eastern Front.

Mike

[Roman W]

Post by yauming
Actually it is amazing that any German troops that were
captured by the Soviets survived their time
in captivity.

What about Polish Silesians drafted by force into Wehrmacht?

RW

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Roman W

Post by yauming
Actually it is amazing that any German troops that were
captured by the Soviets survived their time
in captivity.

What about Polish Silesians drafted by force into Wehrmacht?

There are some points about "non-German" conscripts
in the Wehrmacht. Any resident of Germany since before
1918 would be counted as German, even the odd
Schleswig Dane (or Silesian border Pole). (If they
didn't want to be "German" they would have relocated
in 1918.) So they would all be subject to conscription.

There were additional areas annexed by Germany in
the 1930s where IIRC conscription was also imposed.

AIUI:

Austria (considered fully German, conscripted)

Sudetenland (considered fully German, conscripted)

Danzig (considered fully German, conscripted)

Memel (considered fully German, conscripted ?)

Some additional areas annexed or controlled during
the war:

West Prussia

Poznan/Warthegau

Upper Silesia

Upper Styria

The question is: was general conscription enforced in
these areas? And what happened to such conscripts if
they were captured? Were "Polish" conscripts from the
first three areas recognized as such? Were any of them
released as PoWs? Allowed to volunteer for the Polish
exile army?

[Rich]

Post by Rich Rostrom
The question is: was general conscription enforced in
these areas? And what happened to such conscripts if
they were captured? Were "Polish" conscripts from the
first three areas recognized as such? Were any of them
released as PoWs? Allowed to volunteer for the Polish
exile army?

Like many things German it was subject to a complex systematization
that defies logic. :) The whole mess what originally set up by
Himmler to define who constituted "Germans" in conquered areas,
starting with Poland. "Reichsdeutsche" were easy. They were basically
all except "non-Aryan races" within the defined Reichs territory, so
including pre-1 September Germany, Austria, and the annexed territories
of the former Czechoslovakia (Sudentenland, Bohemia, and Moravia).

All other territory acquired, starting with the General Gouvernment in
Poland, was to have its population classified under the Volksliste as
follows:

Category I: Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) persons of German descent who
were pro-Reich activists in Poland before 1939
Category II: Deutschstämmige (of German descent) Persons of German
descent who had remained passive under Polish rule
Category III: Eingedeutschte (voluntarily German) indigenous persons
considered by the Nazis as partly assimilated by Polish values, but
salvageable; refusing to enroll as VS III often led to a concentration
or forced labor camp
Category IV: Rückgedeutschte (forcibly Germanized) Poles considered
"racially valuable" as "German racial stock", but who resisted; refusing
to enroll in VS III pretty much landed you in VS IV and on a train to a
camp

VS I and VS II were expected to be conscripted and VS I could volunteer
or be conscripted into the SS. VS III began to be conscripted c. 1942
(refusing conscription was also a ticket to VS IV and a camp). VS IV
were only used for forced labor.

VS III were notoriously poor soldier materiel for the Heer. In Italy,
their poor performance resulted in a blistering report on the bad
results of committing predominantly VS III battalions in 3. Pz.-Gren.
Div. Most went over the hill at the first chance and after cursory
vetting were enrolled as replacements for Anders Polish Corps.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Rich
Like many things German it was subject to a complex systematization
that defies logic. :)

Indeed. Though perhaps it would be fairer to
say "things Nazi"; Germans were not especially
irrational.

Post by Rich
all except "non-Aryan races" within the defined Reichs
territory, so including pre-1 September Germany, Austria
Sudentenland, Bohemia, and Moravia...

So the "racial" filter was applied to the Czech
lands? Also to Germany "proper"? Were there people
in upper Silesia who were excluded as non-German?

Was the exclusion made before 1939?

Post by Rich
All other territory acquired, starting with the
General Gouvernment in Poland, was to have its
population classified under the Volksliste as
Category I: Volksdeutsche ...
Category II: Deutschstämmige...
Category III: Eingedeutschte (voluntarily German)...
Category IV: Rückgedeutschte (forcibly Germanized)...

Exactly what I was wondering. Thanks
very much for this information.

Post by Rich
VS I and VS II... VS III...
VS IV were only used for forced labor.

"VS" being the German abbreviation for Category.

One guesses that any other people in these regions
were not considered German and deliberately excluded
from conscription.

so the real classification was done individually, ny
the Germans.

[Rich]

Germans were not especially irrational.

Being one-quarter odd German myself, I might contest that. :)

So the "racial" filter was applied to the Czech
lands? Also to Germany "proper"? Were there people
in upper Silesia who were excluded as non-German?

All "non-Aryan races" were excluded as non-German. Basically
whoever they decided were Jewish or Slavic. And, of course,
"defective" Germans were excluded as well...usually quietly
euthanized for the "good of the race". Czechoslovakia was
split between the Protectorates of Bohemia and Moravia, the
"German" Sudentenland, which were annexed to the Reich, the
Republic of Slovakia, and the territory annexed from Slovakia
by Hungary. Upper Silesia was mostly dominated by people of
Polish descent, Lower Silesia by Germans.

Was the exclusion made before 1939?

In the Reich? Not by the formal Volksliste system, but by
the equally arbitrary division between those who were German
or Aryan and those who were not. The Volksliste system applied
to conquered territories - first Poland, then the Baltic, Western
Russian, and Ukrainian annexations.

Exactly what I was wondering. Thanks
very much for this information.

You're welcome.

"VS" being the German abbreviation for Category.

Sorry, brainfart, I typed "VS" (the abbreviation for
Verbrauchesatze) rather than "VL" for Volksliste. :(

One guesses that any other people in these regions
were not considered German and deliberately excluded
from conscription.

Yep. Slovaks were excluded to their own puppet state and
military. Same in the Balkans where the Croat Republic had
the same role. All other "acceptable" "races" in the
conquered territories who were not classified in the VL, who
volunteered for German service were considered Freiwilliger or
Hilfswilliger, if they were not conscripted as forced labor.
The distinction between them was the former were armed and
organized in separate Ost units. The latter were usually
unarmed and attached to "German" units as service support
personnel.

so the real classification was done individually, ny
the Germans.

Yep, they were the final and arbitrary arbiters.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Rich

Post by Rich Rostrom
so the real classification was done individually, ny
the Germans.

Yep, they were the final and arbitrary arbiters.

The key work on this is still Michael Burleigh's The Racial State:
Germany 1933-1945, though it's focus is on those defined as German to
some extant, rather than those excluded. Mark Mazower's Hitler's Empire:
How the Nazis Ruled Europe also goes into the question.

[RW]

Post by Rich Rostrom
The question is: was general conscription enforced in
these areas? And what happened to such conscripts if
they were captured? Were "Polish" conscripts from the
first three areas recognized as such? Were any of them
released as PoWs? Allowed to volunteer for the Polish
exile army?

Two brothers from my wife's family in Silesia ended up in Wehrmacht in this
way. One went to the West and deserted to join the Polish Army. The second
one went to the East and served in the tank forces until the end of the war
- he seemed to have been at least partially committed to the German war
effort. They met after the war and were good friends.

The story shows how twisted people's fates were in WW2 and in particular how
complex the history of Silesia is - always torn between Poland and Germany,
each demanding exclusive loyalty.

RW

[RW]

Post by yauming
I think Clausewitz wrote that if the defenders didn't surrender
and fought to the bitter end - no quarter or leniency should
be shown.

By modern standards, Clausewitz is a barbarian.

RW

[Rich]

Post by RW
By modern standards, Clausewitz is a barbarian.

No, a realist. :) He simply followed the accepted attitude as to
the deserved fate of a defended place if it went beyond what was
accepted in resisting. Anyone which resisted to the point of a
storming were inviting a sack. Everyone understood it, military
and civilian, long into the 19th century. And it was partly because
of that understanding that we have the modern LOAC.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by yauming
I do know that if I was one of US troops and I had just seen half of my
platoon mates and friends slaughtered on the beach I would have
been sorely tempted and probably would have executed any POWs
that came under my control.

While that is many people's reaction, most soldiers realize that being
known for letting the enemy surrender *without* killing them is far more
valuable: every enemy who surrenders is one fewer enemy that you have to kill- who might kill you while you are at it.

Now, surrendering was never the easiest thing in a war, but forces who
take more prisoners generally take fewer casualties, which is something
that the soldiers at the tip of the spear can really get behind.

Chris Manteuffel

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by yauming
I do know that if I was one of US troops and I had just seen half of my
platoon mates and friends slaughtered on the beach I would have
been sorely tempted and probably would have executed any POWs
that came under my control.

While that is many people's reaction, most soldiers realize that being
known for letting the enemy surrender *without* killing them is far more
valuable: every enemy who surrenders is one fewer enemy that you have to kill- who might kill you while you are at it.
Now, surrendering was never the easiest thing in a war, but forces who
take more prisoners generally take fewer casualties, which is something
that the soldiers at the tip of the spear can really get behind.

And, of course, it's a bit more difficult to get intel from a corpse than
a prisoner.

Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by WJHopwood

...I don't suppose there are many classrooms in the
US where one hears of war crimes almost routinely
committed against Japanese soldiers.

I'm curious about your comment above which implies
that there were war crimes committed "almost routinely"
by American soldiers against Japanese soldiers in WWII
which have since been deliberately hushed up.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps give some
examples. What was done, where, when did they happen,
and which U.S. force or forces committed them?

"War without Mercy" by Dower.

Mike

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by WJHopwood

...I don't suppose there are many classrooms in the
US where one hears of war crimes almost routinely
committed against Japanese soldiers.

I'm curious about your comment above which implies
that there were war crimes committed "almost routinely"
by American soldiers against Japanese soldiers in WWII
which have since been deliberately hushed up.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps give some
examples. What was done, where, when did they happen,
and which U.S. force or forces committed them?

"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war
criminal." - General Curtis LeMay -

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by WJHopwood

...I don't suppose there are many classrooms in the
US where one hears of war crimes almost routinely
committed against Japanese soldiers.

I'm curious about your comment above which implies
that there were war crimes committed "almost routinely"
by American soldiers against Japanese soldiers in WWII
which have since been deliberately hushed up.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps give some
examples. What was done, where, when did they happen,
and which U.S. force or forces committed them?

"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." - General Curtis LeMay -

You would either be speaking German or you would be a lampshade -- Michael Savage

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Michael Emrys
I don't know, but taken with a lot of actions undertaken in Japan in the
last few decades, this smacks of a "we never did anything wrong" attempt
at exculpation and denial.

It's more of an "everyone else was doing something wrong, so why are we
blamed"? attitude that is particularly strong among those identifying
as strong right-wingers.

Post by Michael Emrys
It seems that Japan, or at least a segment of
its leadership,

That segment of leadership that panders to far-right constituencies; almost
every poll of the total of the Japanese people shows they feel that they
should apologize more.

Post by Michael Emrys
is determined to commit a large effort into creating a
cultural and historical blind spot in their own nation. This is
comparable with an attitude I encountered growing up in the American
South where some people maintained that Negroes were better off as
slaves. I don't see this as ending well.

This is common among all politicians in almost all societies. You pointed
out the blind spot about the US South's actions that led to the Civil War,
and the aftermath. There are now some Russians "fondly remembering" the days
of Stalin.

I've never understood why those who identify themselves so strongly as
a nationalistic group stand by the worst things those nations have done
to others.

Mike

[John Dallman]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I've never understood why those who identify themselves so strongly
as a nationalistic group stand by the worst things those nations have
done to others.

Sadly, this is quite simple. They believe so strongly that their group is
virtuous that either (a) it can't have actually done anything bad or (b)
the other group must have deserved it.

It's also most unwise to expect people in other nations to have learned
the same version of history as your own nation.

John

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by John Dallman

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I've never understood why those who identify themselves so strongly
as a nationalistic group stand by the worst things those nations have
done to others.

Sadly, this is quite simple. They believe so strongly that their group is
virtuous that either (a) it can't have actually done anything bad or (b)
the other group must have deserved it.

I'm not sure that's an "or" statement :-)

Post by John Dallman
It's also most unwise to expect people in other nations to have learned
the same version of history as your own nation.

The old saying "Winners write history" never rang true for me; while most
of the ordinary people in Japan seem to have a pretty decent grasp of what
went on, it took a major effort to get that into the history books, after
several decades of, well, not denial so much as ignoring it. To be fair,
there wasn't much of a push for Japan to discuss the past openly until
well after S Korea ditched its rather brutal dictatorship and China began
to move to a more market-driven economy.

Mike

[news]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Michael Emrys
I don't know, but taken with a lot of actions undertaken in Japan in the
last few decades, this smacks of a "we never did anything wrong" attempt
at exculpation and denial.

It's more of an "everyone else was doing something wrong, so why are we
blamed"? attitude that is particularly strong among those identifying
as strong right-wingers.

Uh - because Germany went through 10 years of de-Nazification and much
more extensive war crimes trials than Japan ever did?

I appreciate this might not play too well in a Japanese election
campaign but it's true.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
That segment of leadership that panders to far-right constituencies; almost
every poll of the total of the Japanese people shows they feel that they
should apologize more.

Nearly 70 years later I'd say that's overkill - the main thing is not
to reverse what's already been said and done.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
This is common among all politicians in almost all societies. You pointed
out the blind spot about the US South's actions that led to the Civil War,
and the aftermath. There are now some Russians "fondly remembering" the days
of Stalin.

Mostly on account of 1941-45 - you can be assured it's not 1936-38!

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I've never understood why those who identify themselves so strongly as
a nationalistic group stand by the worst things those nations have done
to others.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by news

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
It's more of an "everyone else was doing something wrong, so why are we
blamed"? attitude that is particularly strong among those identifying
as strong right-wingers.

Uh - because Germany went through 10 years of de-Nazification and much
more extensive war crimes trials than Japan ever did?

And because the US had a free hand to deal with Japan, and wasn't a
harsh conquoror.

Post by news
I appreciate this might not play too well in a Japanese election
campaign but it's true.

Depends on the district; as in most modern nations, the very conservative
(and predominately rural) districts are more likely to feel call of the
old arch-nationals.

Post by news

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
This is common among all politicians in almost all societies. You pointed
out the blind spot about the US South's actions that led to the Civil War,
and the aftermath. There are now some Russians "fondly remembering" the days
of Stalin.

Mostly on account of 1941-45 - you can be assured it's not 1936-38!

Back when they were "respected"

Mike

[GFH]

Were the WWII Japanese "comfort women" really forced
to be the sex slaves of the Japanese troops?

Too simplistic. A Japanese man I knew well, an
ex-IJA enlisted man, said, "Korea is a nation of
prison guards and comfort women." An attitude
that was very common in Japan at that time and into
the at least the 1970s.

GFH

[Alan Meyer]

Post by WJHopwood
Were the WWII Japanese "comfort women"really forced
to be the sex slaves of the Japanese troops? Or were
they voluntary professional prostitutes?

Even a cursory Google search turns up mounds of evidence in the form of
both studies and first hand accounts showing that women were forced into
this prostitution. See for example:

http://www.amnesty.org.nz/files/Comfort-Women-factsheet.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/25/comfort-women-wanted_n_4325584.html

The methods by which women were brought into the service apparently
included kidnapping/abuction, false offers of jobs that turned out not
to be the jobs offered, and purchase of young girls from destitute parents.

Is it possible that all of the personal testimonies are lies? Is it
possible that women would sign on for jobs servicing up to 100 men a day
and like the work? Is it possible that teenage girls (most of the
"women" were said to be teenagers) would do this? Is it possible that
no women from Japan (where people were also starving) wanted such jobs
but women from Korea and China did?

I should think that the possibility is on the same order as the
possibility that the Holocaust never happened, that Poland actually
attacked Germany and China attacked Japan and not vice versa, and that
the rape of Nanjing never occurred.

Are the people aiming to retract the apology any better than Holocaust
deniers?

Alan

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Alan Meyer
Are the people aiming to retract the apology any better than Holocaust
deniers?

Not in my book. And the thing that makes it worse is so many people in
official positions are on board with this.

Michael

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by WJHopwood
Were the WWII Japanese "comfort women"really forced
to be the sex slaves of the Japanese troops? Or were
they voluntary professional prostitutes?

Both. There were those who volunteered; prostitution was not unknown
in Asia at the time, and apparently is still going on now in both Asia and
other parts of the world.

Others were forced into this; they were taken from mostly the Korean
peninnsula, but also from any Japanese-conquored territory.

Post by WJHopwood
Although the current Japanese Prime Minister has pledged
that Japan will stand by its Kono Statement of apology to the
wartime "comfort women," the question remaining is whether
the Japanese government will continue to do so? Stay tuned.

Why is that a question?

Mike

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by WJHopwood
Were the WWII Japanese "comfort women"really forced
to be the sex slaves of the Japanese troops? Or were
they voluntary professional prostitutes? Those seem to
be the principal questions raised by an official Japanese
report released yesterday and described in a New York
Times article titled "Japanese Report Casts Doubt on
Admission of Wartime Sexual Coercion."
....
WJH

You might like to read this document from the National Archives:
http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html