日会話 (Japanese Discussion Thread)

[Kaidou]

If shrine visits are part of the Japanese culture, then war criminals shouldn't be placed there, because they are simply a disgrace to your nation. I hope you're not thinking that the war criminals are heroes of WWII. Also, they shouldn't be visited, if Japan truly wants to show pacifism with its neighboring nations. Abe, not only prayed there, but he modified the constitution to allow for the mobilization of the Japanese military forces.

1. Abe modifying the consitiution to allow for the mobilisation of Japanese troops does not in any way glorify Japanese war crimes; if it were, then at least three quarters of the world's countries should have no right to mobilise their troops at all.

2. Moving people out of shrines is a lot easier said than done. If it were that easy, then both Hirohito and Akihito would have done it.

3. If you shouldn't visit the Yasukuni Shrine just because there are 12 war criminals there, then you also shouldn't visit Vietnam War memorials or pretty much any war memorial. No country's military is completely free of war crimes; it just so happens that some are more publicised and politicised than others.

Also, on what basis do you suspect that I worship Japanese war criminals as heroes? The fact that I'm half Japanese?

South Koreans don't do that. That's true. Nor do they pay homage to criminals.

Like I've pointed out, Abe's visiting of the Yasukuni Shrine isn't an inherent paying of respects to war criminals, just like how visiting a Vietnam War memorial isn't a display of support for dropping napalm bombs and Agent Orange on civilian targets.

[Kaidou]

You don't pray for people in Shinto shrines.

But politically, Abe is visiting the shrine for one purpose and one only: he is there to court votes.

Yet his approval ratings are dropping.

It's about time he goes. At this point, he and Tarō Asō are basically ghosts from the previous decade trying to cling on for dear life.

[Gim]

1. Abe modifying the consitiution to allow for the mobilisation of Japanese troops does not in any way glorify Japanese war crimes; if it were, then at least three quarters of the world's countries should have no right to mobilise their troops at all.

If Japan is truly apologetic about their war crimes, they shouldn't think of mobilizing troops for a very long time.

2. Moving people out of shrines is a lot easier said than done. If it were that easy, then both Hirohito and Akihito would have done it.

They shouldn't have been placed there in the first place.

3. If you shouldn't visit the Yasukuni Shrine just because there are 12 war criminals there, then you also shouldn't visit Vietnam War memorials or pretty much any war memorial. No country's military is completely free of war crimes; it just so happens that some are more publicised and politicised than others.

Not all soldiers participated in war crimes. They were simply defending or reclaiming their annexed territory. That is why they deserve to be revered.

Also, on what basis do you suspect that I worship Japanese war criminals as heroes? The fact that I'm half Japanese?

I was talking about the Japanese who worship them as heroes. I know not all Japanese do, and probably including you.

[KiraKira Land]

「日会話」と書いてあるのに、英語ばっかりだわ

政治的な事は他のスレッドで話したらいいと思います。

[Hyggemata]

「日会話」と書いてあるのに、英語ばっかりだわ

政治的な事は他のスレッドで話したらいいと思います。

はい〜

[Gim]

「日会話」と書いてあるのに、英語ばっかりだわ

政治的な事は他のスレッドで話したらいいと思います。

However, isn't this the Japan discussion thread, or just the language, "Japanese"?

[Kaidou]

If Japan is truly apologetic about their war crimes, they shouldn't think of mobilizing troops for a very long time.

There's no link between the two at all; why, then, is it okay for the US to mobilise their troops? Should they not be contrite over the immense civilian casualties and suffering incurred during Vietnam War that they fought?

Furthermore, it's very unreasonable to expect the Japanese to keep their military small because they committed crimes 70 years ago under a completely different government and under completely different circumstances from the present day (crimes they have already apologised for numerous times), especially considering the looming spectre of the DPRK.

They shouldn't have been placed there in the first place.

That's hardly Abe's problem. He hadn't even finished is education when the war criminals were put in Yasukuni, and even so, it was a very quiet affair, such that Hirohito himself only found out in 1980.

To remove them would be an even messier affair than allowing Akihito to abdicate, especially since it would involve extensive negotiation with Shintō authorities, which don't always cooperate with the government.

Not all soldiers participated in war crimes. They were simply defending or reclaiming their annexed territory. That is why they deserve to be revered.

In that case, why is it okay for Americans to visit Vietnam War memorials even though they also honour the few who ordered Agent Orange attacks on civilians, while it isn't okay for Japanese to visit Yasukuni?

I was talking about the Japanese who worship them as heroes. I know not all Japanese do, and probably including you.

"I hope you're not thinking that the Japanese war criminals are heroes of WWII" sounds more like a subtle accusation against me than a general statement about Japanese people's opinions in general.

[Kaidou]

「日会話」と書いてあるのに、英語ばっかりだわ

政治的な事は他のスレッドで話したらいいと思います。

これは日本語のことだけじゃないのスレッドと思った。

[Gim]

There's no link between the two at all; why, then, is it okay for the US to mobilise their troops? Should they not be contrite over the immense civilian casualties and suffering incurred during Vietnam War that they fought?

Furthermore, it's very unreasonable to expect the Japanese to keep their military small because they committed crimes 70 years ago under a completely different government and under completely different circumstances from the present day (crimes they have already apologised for numerous times), especially considering the looming spectre of the DPRK.

Fine. U.S. is at fault for invading Vietnam, although they were just "containing" them from USSR. Also, Japan didn't need to strengthen their military, since the fight was against Korea, U.S., and the Soviet Union. U.S. may have placed military bases there, but that doesn't provide an excuse for Japan to bolster their forces.

That's hardly Abe's problem. He hadn't even finished is education when the war criminals were put in Yasukuni, and even so, it was a very quiet affair, such that Hirohito himself only found out in 1980.

To remove them would be an even messier affair than allowing Akihito to abdicate, especially since it would involve extensive negotiation with Shintō authorities, which don't always cooperate with the government.

Akihito should've at least abdicated, but that's just my opinion.

[quote[In that case, why is it okay for Americans to visit Vietnam War memorials even though they also honour the few who ordered Agent Orange attacks on civilians, while it isn't okay for Japanese to visit Yasukuni? [/quote]

The Americans were at fault as well; however, to be honest with you, they did more good than evil, so I'd give them the upper hand over the Japanese in the past.

[Kaidou]

Fine. U.S. is at fault for invading Vietnam, although they were just "containing" them from USSR. Also, Japan didn't need to strengthen their military, since the fight was against Korea, U.S., and the Soviet Union. U.S. may have placed military bases there, but that doesn't provide an excuse for Japan to bolster their forces.

By that logic, the Japanese could also have been said to be "containing" the communists, seeing as their Sankō-Sakusen campaigns (which were far more destructive than Pearl Harbour or the Rape of Nanking) were carried out in order to put down insurrections and military campaigns by the Chinese communists.

Also, Vietnam was hardly a vassal state of the USSR or the PRC, but that's a different discussion.

Akihito should've at least abdicated, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean. Akihito does want to abdicate; it's just that the constitution doesn't allow that right now, ergo Abe wants to help him by amending it.

The Americans were at fault as well; however, to be honest with you, they did more good than evil, so I'd give them the upper hand over the Japanese in the past.

The Americans hardly did more good than evil in Vietnam. Considering Ngo Dinh Diem was far worse than Ho Chi Minh ever was, as well as the vast array of needless atrocities committed against civilians, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Sure, it was an effort at containing communism (which was definitely not as monolithic as the US wanted to portray it as at the time), but at what cost?

Vietnam today, I can say for sure, is far better than it would have been under Ngo Dinh Diem and his American backed government. But if you want to discuss this further, seeing as this is a thread about Japan and not Vietnam, feel free to telegram me so we don't clog this place up any further.

[Gim]

By that logic, the Japanese could also have been said to be "containing" the communists, seeing as their Sankō-Sakusen campaigns (which were far more destructive than Pearl Harbour or the Rape of Nanking) were carried out in order to put down insurrections and military campaigns by the Chinese communists.

Also, Vietnam was hardly a vassal state of the USSR or the PRC, but that's a different discussion.

Well, I was referring to the containment policies of the superpowers: U.S. and USSR. PRC didn't have much power, then, other than sheer number of military soldiers.

I'm not sure what you mean. Akihito does want to abdicate; it's just that the constitution doesn't allow that right now, ergo Abe wants to help him by amending it.

Can't Abe change the constitution to allow such things to happen? That's what I hope.

The Americans hardly did more good than evil in Vietnam. Considering Ngo Dinh Diem was far worse than Ho Chi Minh ever was, as well as the vast array of needless atrocities committed against civilians, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Sure, it was an effort at containing communism (which was definitely not as monolithic as the US wanted to portray it as at the time), but at what cost?

Vietnam today, I can say for sure, is far better than it would have been under Ngo Dinh Diem and his American backed government. But if you want to discuss this further, seeing as this is a thread about Japan and not Vietnam, feel free to telegram me so we don't clog this place up any further.

I'm not saying the Americans did more good in Vietnam. I was writing, in general.

[Kaidou]

ところで、今年は大阪市に訪ねる計画を立てている。あそこの観光名所にはどんなところがあるか。

[Gigaverse]

Gim, we're over 70 years since the war already. The issue around the apologies and a handful of rocks aside, why would you be against the Japanese preparing their defenses? Better to just leave everything to the neighbors am I right?

[Gim]

Gim, we're over 70 years since the war already.

So, that automatically erases the criminal history your nation has caused?

The issue around the apologies and a handful of rocks aside

Apologies are a given, and your nation were stubborn enough to claim the two rocks.

Why would you be against the Japanese preparing their defenses? Better to just leave everything to the neighbors am I right?

Because I don't think they deserve to. If you wish to talk further, TG me. Don't discuss here.

[Gigaverse]

-snip-

Don't bother. I wanted to talk it in a friendly way, but judging by your general attitude from the start, you're a lost cause.

All I want you to know is, I'm a Vietnamese-turning-Belgian. I'm not even Japanese.

[Gim]

-snip-

Don't bother. I wanted to talk it in a friendly way, but judging by your general attitude from the start, you're a lost cause.

All I want you to know is, I'm a Vietnamese-turning-Belgian. I'm not even Japanese.

Keep it to TG. I'm not antagonizing anyone here.

[Hyggemata]

TBH for the emperor to order the removal of the war criminals from the Yasukuni Shrine would violate at least two fundamental principles of modern Japanese government. First, the emperor has no independent political authority, so he should not be allowed to issue commands without the advice of the Prime Minister, who takes political responsibility. Second, it would violate the separate of church and state, which have been separate since 1947.

[Gim]

TBH for the emperor to order the removal of the war criminals from the Yasukuni Shrine would violate at least two fundamental principles of modern Japanese government. First, the emperor has no independent political authority, so he should not be allowed to issue commands without the advice of the Prime Minister, who takes political responsibility. Second, it would violate the separate of church and state, which have been separate since 1947.

Churches are in Japan? I thought they were flat-out Shintoists.

[Kaidou]

TBH for the emperor to order the removal of the war criminals from the Yasukuni Shrine would violate at least two fundamental principles of modern Japanese government. First, the emperor has no independent political authority, so he should not be allowed to issue commands without the advice of the Prime Minister, who takes political responsibility. Second, it would violate the separate of church and state, which have been separate since 1947.

Churches are in Japan? I thought they were flat-out Shintoists.

He meant the separation of religion and state in general. Christians comprise only a small percentage of people there.

[Gim]

Churches are in Japan? I thought they were flat-out Shintoists.

He meant the separation of religion and state in general. Christians comprise only a small percentage of people there.

Oh, I see.

[Saiwania]

If Japan is truly apologetic about their war crimes, they shouldn't think of mobilizing troops for a very long time.

The US has wanted Japan to rearm itself for literally forever. At least since after the Korean war. This Article 9 nonsense was supposedly added in primarily because of this unknown Japanese citizen or official (it might've been Yoshida) suggesting the idea to the drafters of their constitutional document and Douglas MacArthur agreeing to it.

I get the reluctance of Japan to not give their military everything they might want. There was probably a deep sense of betrayal that a small and select group of war mongers in government, along with their military (who were supposed to be looking out for them), kept lying and fear mongering to Japan's citizenry about how negative it'd be to lose to the US in warfare.

The only major exposure to Americans before 1945 really, was their wartime propaganda and the US strategic air bombings and blockades that pretty much reinforced what media they were getting, which probably had them concluding "yes- the Americans must really be barbarians intent to destroy us!"

This understandably got them all mobilized into a "fight or flight" mode but when the worst fears of what an American occupation would bring never came to pass because it was all lies for the most part, Japanese civilians had experienced a ton of emotional grief and anger which was instilled in them by their leaders, but had nothing to show for it. That generation and more could probably never trust their armed forces ever again.

But those dark days are far behind Japan, with China ascendant and there being more problems in the world; it is long overdue for them to assume the full military capabilities of a normal country without baggage from the past weighing them down. I dare say that I'd trust Japan to have nukes.

[KiraKira Land]

「日会話」と書いてあるのに、英語ばっかりだわ

政治的な事は他のスレッドで話したらいいと思います。

これは日本語のことだけじゃないのスレッドと思った。

そうなの？

じゃあもうちょっと明るい事について話しましょうか。こういう話しは大嫌いですから。　鬱になりますわ。

[Kaidou]

これは日本語のことだけじゃないのスレッドと思った。

そうなの？

じゃあもうちょっと明るい事について話しましょうか。こういう話しは大嫌いですから。　鬱になりますわ。

オーケー

ところで、今年は大阪市に訪ねる計画を立てている。あそこの観光名所にはどんなところがあるか。

Don't bother. I wanted to talk it in a friendly way, but judging by your general attitude from the start, you're a lost cause.

All I want you to know is, I'm a Vietnamese-turning-Belgian. I'm not even Japanese.

Keep it to TG. I'm not antagonizing anyone here.

I did that ten hours ago, but you haven't replied.

[Khalisako]

I dare say that I'd trust Japan to have nukes.

Yes, I can imagine it now...

Poor location chosen to store nukes
natural disaster(s) strike,
nukes somehow go haywire or go boom,
eyes melt skin explodes everybody dead, etc.

[Kaidou]

I dare say that I'd trust Japan to have nukes.

Yes, I can imagine it now...

Poor location chosen to store nukes
natural disaster(s) strike,
nukes somehow go haywire or go boom,
eyes melt skin explodes everybody dead, etc.

On a side note, Japan's and the US' history with nukes seems to have at least some link with their portrayal of nuclear accidents in popular culture. In American comics, for example, nuclear accidents create superheroes; in Japan, you get Godzilla.