The Ship Model Forum

[quote="J. Soca"]Sometimes I like to feel ignorant about these things because debating them never ends and the more we go over them the more things rise to the surface, quick question haven’t the japenese Prime Ministers apologized to China and Korea for the atrocities committed back in WW2? If I’m not mistaken I read something a while back saying PM Koizumi apologized for the atrocities, another thing I’ve heard ppl saying Japan hasn’t given an official apology does this have to do with acknowledging WW2 atrocities in their history? TIA I’m looking forward to your answers.[/quote]

Several Japanese prime ministers have verbally offered vague statement of regret rather than apology for past wars of aggression. These are usually are along the lines of "we are very sorrow if we did something wrong", instead of "We were guilty of this and that, and for those we are sorry".

It is fair to say Japan has not acknowledged her war guilt in anything like the manner that the Germans have. Unlike the Germans, tmost Japanese born since about 1960 would be surprised to learn that Japan had not on the whole behaved with the utmost probity during world war II.

However, that unsatisfactory background had in fact not become a serious problem between China, Korea and Japan until Japan's education ministry formally revise her national standard school history books to delete any references to her war crimes and her invasion of her neighbors, and to questioned the legality of the San Francisco convention and the resulting war crime trials following WWII. The crisis was heightened by Japanese prime minister Koisumi's broking of the long standing taboo against visits to the Yosukuni shrine which housed the remains of 14 of the war criminals executed as a result of those trials. These particular actions were seen in China and Korea, with considerable justification, as evidence that Japanese refusal to acknowledge the specifics of her crime were not merely a face saving measure before the Japanese public, but reflect a very thorough lack of any contrition throughout the policy making establishment in Tokyo.

Sometimes I like to feel ignorant about these things because debating them never ends and the more we go over them the more things rise to the surface, quick question haven’t the japenese Prime Ministers apologized to China and Korea for the atrocities committed back in WW2? If I’m not mistaken I read something a while back saying PM Koizumi apologized for the atrocities, another thing I’ve heard ppl saying Japan hasn’t given an official apology does this have to do with acknowledging WW2 atrocities in their history? TIA I’m looking forward to your answers.

I meant, in that the vast bulk of illegal opium is raised in Afghanistan along the Hindu Kush, right where the BEI Co. caused it to be grown.

[quote="Werner"]British industry is primarily responsible for the modern face of the drugs problem.[/quote]

Were you to bother looking at the subject with any sense of objectivity, then you'd find that it's policies of prohibition and marginalisation that are the greatest source of "the drugs problem".

These modern policies are, I note, direct descendants of the US's utterly doomed attempt to control alcohol, last century.

Didn't work then, and doesn't work now.

Andy

[quote="chuck"]So perhaps Werner would equitably suggest that all monuments to Queen Victoria should be blown up and left smoldering craters to teach the British humility.[/quote]
Actually, we need to consider the opium trade along with Irish and other colonialism when considering a comprehensive settlement. British industry is primarily responsible for the modern face of the drugs problem.

A government that, when faced with a famine not of its own making but is certain to cause mass death, nevertheless offers little relief is certainly very nearly as guilty as one that pursued policies despite having already foreseen that it would lead to famine and mass death. Britain certainly has much to answer for for her conduct during the Irish potato famine.

So perhaps Werner would equitably suggest that all monuments to Queen Victoria should be blown up and left smoldering craters to teach the British humility.

Interesting. Anyone ready for comparing Nanking to the Irish Great Famine?

[quote="Werner"][quote="chuck"][quote="Werner"]

Then we can agree that a regime is equally guilty if it starves it's millions or executes them? That "operational necessity" provides no cover for the murder of noncombatants or prisoners?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

[quote="Werner"][quote="chuck"][quote="Werner"]
It is really quite twisted logic to dismiss ......[/quote]


I am afraid the "twisted logic" and the "dismissal" exist only in your head. I also strongly suspect that you only put them there to give yourself something self-righteously indignant to say.[/quote]
Then we can agree that a regime is equally guilty if it starves it's millions or executes them? That "operational necessity" provides no cover for the murder of noncombatants or prisoners?[/quote]

For the purpose of this discussion, yes.

[quote="chuck"][quote="Werner"]
It is really quite twisted logic to dismiss ......[/quote]


I am afraid the "twisted logic" and the "dismissal" exist only in your head. I also strongly suspect that you only put them there to give yourself something self-righteously indignant to say.[/quote]
Then we can agree that a regime is equally guilty if it starves it's millions or executes them? That "operational necessity" provides no cover for the murder of noncombatants or prisoners?

[quote="Werner"]
It is really quite twisted logic to dismiss ......[/quote]


I am afraid the "twisted logic" and the "dismissal" exist only in your head. I also strongly suspect that you only put them there to give yourself something self-righteously indignant to say.

[quote="Lesforan"]

Is it "better" for a despot to practice mass murder on his own subjects? If you consider that a national leader's first duty ought to be for the preservation of his own country, no.

[/quote]

When you are a citizen of a country next to one ruled by a murderous despot, the last thing you could wish is for the murderous despot to be competent in performing his first duty.

The difference between a despotic regime that practice mass murder upon mainly its own subjects and one that practice mass murder mainly on foreigners is simply one of competence in national administration.

Where there is a real choice, all murderous despotic regimes prefer to make its own citizenry complicit in its crimes by appearing to perform its first duty and perform mass murder upon foreigners, rather than making enemies of its own citizens by performing mass murder directly upon on its own subject.

However, when a murderous regime is not yet competent in the area of national administration, or the nation the regime administers is simply too small, then such choices are not available to it because the regime could not gather the wherewithal to successfully project power into a foreign land and practice mass murder there. This would be the case with Mao's China, Stalin's USSR prior to about 1939, and Polpot's regime. Lacking a channel to convince its citizens that the despotism is all for the performance of its first duty and thereby making its citizens complicit in its crimes, the murderous regime must resort to suppressing its citizenry by practicing mass murder directly on its own citizenry.

But when a murderous regime is backed by competent performance in the area of national administration, such as Imperial Japan, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR after WWII, then it has the choice of making its citizens complicit. In this case regime would showed the universal preference of murderous regimes by making its own citizens complicit in its crimes and killing a great many innocent foreigners.

[quote="Lesforan"]I am also catagorically opposed to snarkism.[/quote]

hey now. that's why i deleted the post.

I disagree that the US was not worried about a partition of Japan before the end of WWII. I think that was one of the reasons for the atomic bombings. Bring the war to a sudden close before the Soviet Union has a legitimate position as a victor. The late declaration of war against Japan by the Soviet Union almost guaranteed the US would pull out all stops to conclude the war. I think the overriding consideration was to limit US casualties, and to avoid political incrimination for refusing to use the weapon.

Is it "better" for a despot to practice mass murder on his own subjects? If you consider that a national leader's first duty ought to be for the preservation of his own country, no.

I am also catagorically opposed to snarkism.

While I by no means support the actions, you have to also consider two things when pointing out the enormous numbers of dead courtesy of the Chinese Communist policies, these being that compare all you want in raw numbers, remember that China and Russia have two of the larger population bases in the world. Thus it would make a whole lot more sense to compare perchance in a percentage of population, considering you can fit what, six or seven, maybe even more than ten, Germanies into China? Change always has a cost, and the more radical and forced the change is, the higher the cost. Unfortunately, there are times where rapid, radical and iron-fisted change is needed. Could you imagine if the Russians had not built up their industry enough to manage something like the Winter Offensive? The Russian dead would have been significantly higher from the sheer nature of attritional warfare. Point out the Lend-Lease all you want, the Germans had every intent of grinding the Soviets down, unfortunately they wouldn't have actually gotten all that far, since the Russians win at attrition versus just about any country in the world. Of course the deaths in China and Russia were enormous with the changes in policy, but no change as radical as those comes without its cost. The number is staggering, but put it into perspective to the sheer raw population figures and it's not as staggering. As Stalin himself said... "Quantity has a Quality all in its own."

[quote="chuck"][quote="Lesforan"]I have a hard time imagining anyone more bloodthirsty than Stalin...or more infamous for killing his own people.[/quote]

It seems quite probable that Stalin ordered many more people executed than did Mao. The number of people the Chinese communist party actually executed is actually quite low by comparison, the estimates range from under a million to may be 2-3 million. I've seen estimates of 5 million executed by Stalin.

However, Mao accepted many more deaths as a foreseeable consequence of his policies than did Stalin. Mao is heard by no less a witness than Nikita Krushchev to have said that he is perfectly willing to accept several hundred million deaths in his effort to build up China. In the end demographics show there had been 30 million excess deaths in China just between 1958 and 1963. That's more than all non-WWII related excess deaths in the USSR under Stalin. The total number of people thought to have died as result of the policies of the Chinese communist party ranges from 40-100 million, depending on who you ask, and whether you include the consequence of the Chinese civil war which the communists fought and won. No other government yet formed can match even the low end score.

But let's point out that the [i]high[/i] estimate of 2-3 million Chinese actually executed by the Chinese communist party exceeds most estimate of the total number of Chinese civilians who were executed by the Japanese. Let's also point out that the single largest loss of Chinese lives during the Sino-Japanese war was infact inflicted by not the Japanese, not the Chinese communists, but the supposedly good guy Chinese nationalists. In 1938, to slow the advance of the Japanese, they intentionally blew up dikes around the Yellow river in a densely inhabited area, drowning 800,000 Chinese, 3 times more than died in Nanking.


[quote="Lesforan"]At least the Japanese victums weren't their fellow countrymen. In most instances, anyway.[/quote]

And that's a good thing? I would rather blood thirsty regime restrict themselves to killing their fellow countrymen instead of foreigners who really were totally innocent of putting them in power.

[quote="Lesforan"]The Allies were motovated by a desire not to have Japan partitioned in the manner of Germany. By then, the Soviet's true motives were obvious.[/quote]

When the US decided to prop up the scions of Japanese war criminals, it was already the mid 1950s, long past any danger of Japan being partitioned.[/quote]
It is really quite twisted logic to dismiss deaths by starvation or policy like Mao's and Stalin's (Ukraine) with a wave of the hand, and then compare a quite similar policy decision taken in wartime by the Nationalists to the more personal "executions".

If I order a million dead by starvation or a bullet, does it matter?

Furthermore, since Communism is a dead regime in Russia we have access to their records. China has in no way accounted for the millions it put down with a bullet for not being the best Communists.

Since the ratio of males/females in many parts of China is 1.5/1.0, we can assume the extra female deaths in this case to an imposed policy forcing a survival choice on the parents. Then, of course, there are the anecdotes of the local party official visiting the new mother and taking her second child away from her and drowning it in the field.

Of course, the murder of little girls is probably overstated today. The Communists have discovered a way to retail their surplus girls to Westerners who waited too long to have children of their own.

<deleted - unnecessarily rude and snarky>

[quote="Filipe Ramires"][quote="Werner"]Les, most scholars put Mao's toll at around 60 millions. He's in a league of his own.[/quote]

So much for morality in demanding appologies from the Japanese.[/quote]

This is why I despise any over the top shows of indignation by any one nation at the sins of another.

[quote="Lesforan"]I have a hard time imagining anyone more bloodthirsty than Stalin...or more infamous for killing his own people.[/quote]

It seems quite probable that Stalin ordered many more people executed than did Mao. The number of people the Chinese communist party actually executed is actually quite low by comparison, the estimates range from under a million to may be 2-3 million. I've seen estimates of 5 million executed by Stalin.

However, Mao accepted many more deaths as a foreseeable consequence of his policies than did Stalin. Mao is heard by no less a witness than Nikita Krushchev to have said that he is perfectly willing to accept several hundred million deaths in his effort to build up China. In the end demographics show there had been 30 million excess deaths in China just between 1958 and 1963. That's more than all non-WWII related excess deaths in the USSR under Stalin. The total number of people thought to have died as result of the policies of the Chinese communist party ranges from 40-100 million, depending on who you ask, and whether you include the consequence of the Chinese civil war which the communists fought and won. No other government yet formed can match even the low end score.

But let's point out that the [i]high[/i] estimate of 2-3 million Chinese actually executed by the Chinese communist party exceeds most estimate of the total number of Chinese civilians who were executed by the Japanese. Let's also point out that the single largest loss of Chinese lives during the Sino-Japanese war was infact inflicted by not the Japanese, not the Chinese communists, but the supposedly good guy Chinese nationalists. In 1938, to slow the advance of the Japanese, they intentionally blew up dikes around the Yellow river in a densely inhabited area, drowning 800,000 Chinese, 3 times more than died in Nanking.


[quote="Lesforan"]At least the Japanese victums weren't their fellow countrymen. In most instances, anyway.[/quote]

And that's a good thing? I would rather blood thirsty regime restrict themselves to killing their fellow countrymen instead of foreigners who really were totally innocent of putting them in power.

[quote="Lesforan"]The Allies were motovated by a desire not to have Japan partitioned in the manner of Germany. By then, the Soviet's true motives were obvious.[/quote]

When the US decided to prop up the scions of Japanese war criminals, it was already the mid 1950s, long past any danger of Japan being partitioned.

I have a hard time imagining anyone more bloodthirsty than Stalin...or more infamous for killing his own people.

At least the Japanese victums weren't their fellow countrymen. In most instances, anyway.

The Allies were motovated by a desire not to have Japan partitioned in the manner of Germany. By then, the Soviet's true motives were obvious.

[quote="Filipe Ramires"][quote="Werner"]Les, most scholars put Mao's toll at around 60 millions. He's in a league of his own.[/quote]

So much for morality in demanding appologies from the Japanese.[/quote]
It would be nice to imagine his score will stand as the low water mark of inhumanity, but the spread of nuclear weapons make it probable more civilians will be murdered in the 21st Century than in the 20th.