Progressive development in Yasukuni

[Aepsilons]

@LeveragedBuyout , you asked me in a prior thread about the possibility of removing 14 individuals from Yasukuni , well, the following is impeccable development on the matter. Thought you and others would like to read this.

------------

Conservative Group Urges Changes at Japanese War Shrine


TOKYO — An influential group representing families of Japanese soldiers killed in World War II has asked the Yasukuni Shrine to separate the 14 war criminals honored there from the other war dead, throwing its weight behind a longstanding proposal to make the site less of a political flash point.

The Fukuoka Prefecture chapter of the War-Bereaved Families Association, or Izokukai, in southern Japan passed a resolution on Monday asking shrine officials to separate the Class A war criminals, who include Gen. Hideki Tojo, the wartime leader, from the other war dead honored at the shrine. While the idea of removing the war criminals has been floated for years, this is the first time that a chapter of the Izokukai, one of the most powerful conservative interest groups in Japan, has supported such a move.

The shrine, which honors Japan’s 2.5 million modern war dead, has become a chronic source of friction with China and South Korea, two victims of early-20th-century Japanese militarism that object to visits to Yasukuni by Japanese leaders. Japan’s current prime minister, Shinzo Abe, a vocal nationalist, increased tensions by visiting the shrine , in central Tokyo, last year.

The visit was widely seen as a bid to please his supporters on the political right, including the Izokukai, which has been a fervent advocate of visits to Yasukuni to honor the war dead. For this reason, Monday’s resolution raised eyebrows in Japan by signaling a new flexibility in at least one chapter of the national group in the face of geopolitical tensions, though it remains to be seen whether other chapters will follow suit.

The resolution is an effort to remove a main source of the controversy surrounding Yasukuni: its honoring of the souls of Class A war criminals, who were convicted by the postwar Tokyo Tribunal of crimes against humanity for starting the war. Seven of them were hanged; the others were imprisoned or died before they could be sentenced. None of the war dead honored at the shrine are buried there; the site enshrines their souls under the beliefs of Japan’s native Shinto religion.

The 14 war criminals were secretly added to the list of souls honored at Yasukuni by the shrine’s priests in 1978, a move that reflected the belief of some Japanese nationalists that they were actually patriots who had been victims of victor’s justice by the triumphant Allies. When the enshrinement was made public a year later, in 1979, the emperor at the time, Hirohito, protested by refusing to visit Yasukuni, a boycott continued by his son, the current emperor, Akihito.

The honoring of the 14 has also been the main reason given by China and South Korea for their objections, starting in the 1980s, to Japanese politicians’ visiting the shrine. In those countries, the inclusion of the war criminals has helped make Yasukuni a symbol of Japan’s perceived lack of repentance for its wartime misdeeds.

Proposals to remove the 14 have been made before, including by prominent members of the Liberal Democratic Party, which has governed Japan for most of the past six decades. Enshrining them elsewhere would allow Japanese politicians to honor their war dead without seeming to revere the wartime leaders and their decision to start the war.

However, the leaders of the shrine, which is privately run, have so far resisted such efforts, saying that once a soul has been added to the shrine, it cannot be removed. It has also criticized pressure from politicians as a violation of the Japanese Constitution’s separation of church and state.

The bereaved families’ association has long been seen as generally supportive of the shrine. However, some families have objected to having their loved ones’ souls enshrined with those of the leaders who sent them to their deaths in a suicidal war.

If the 14 are removed, the Fukuoka chapter “hopes that the emperor and empress, as well as the prime minister and all other Japanese nationals, will be able to pay their respects at Yasukuni without reserve,” the resolution said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/world/asia/japan-yasukuni-shrine-izokukai.html?_r=0

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Excellent news, thank you for this. I have some questions about Yasukuni based on some paradoxical information I saw in your article. I'll excerpt the points.

The Good:

TOKYO — An influential group representing families of Japanese soldiers killed in World War II has asked the Yasukuni Shrine to separate the 14 war criminals honored there from the other war dead

The visit was widely seen as a bid to please his supporters on the political right, including the Izokukai, which has been a fervent advocate of visits to Yasukuni to honor the war dead.

The Bad:

None of the war dead honored at the shrine are buried there; the site enshrines their souls under the beliefs of Japan’s native Shinto religion.

The Ugly:

The 14 war criminals were secretly added to the list of souls honored at Yasukuni by the shrine’s priests in 1978, a move that reflected the belief of some Japanese nationalists that they were actually patriots who had been victims of victor’s justice by the triumphant Allies. When the enshrinement was made public a year later, in 1979, the emperor at the time, Hirohito, protested by refusing to visit Yasukuni, a boycott continued by his son, the current emperor, Akihito.

However, the leaders of the shrine, which is privately run, have so far resisted such efforts, saying that once a soul has been added to the shrine, it cannot be removed. It has also criticized pressure from politicians as a violation of the Japanese Constitution’s separation of church and state.

I thought I had heard before that there was nothing physical to remove from Yasukuni, which is why I asked about it before. It seems that my recollection was correct. Even worse is the assertion by the priests there that the souls cannot be "disinterred," so to speak.

More problematic is the fact that apparently the mechanism for honoring the Class A war criminals (I still don't fully understand this, is it simply a matter of names on a list?) was secretly added by the priests. Admittedly, my understanding of Shinto is poor, but doesn't the emperor have a prime role to play in Shinto? Thus, if the emperor protests and refuses to visit Yasukuni, doesn't Yasukuni lose legitimacy as a Shinto-approved shrine for the war dead? And if that's the case, why do successive PMs feel obligated to visit? They have the perfect political cover, in that the emperor himself refuses to visit.

The nail in the coffin (sorry, I couldn't resist) is that the shrine is privately run. This gives Japan a perfect opportunity to establish a state-run, geopolitically-acceptable alternative (such as Chidorigafuchi) that the politicians, as representatives of the country, can visit, while also providing an outlet for those who wish to honor the war dead to do so without any political implications. I can't imagine China and South Korea would continue to complain if such a solution were found, and if they did complain, it would be eternally clear that the complaints stem from political motivations, not ethical ones.

 

[Aepsilons]

Excellent news, thank you for this. I have some questions about Yasukuni based on some paradoxical information I saw in your article. I'll excerpt the points.

The Good:




The Bad:


The Ugly:




I thought I had heard before that there was nothing physical to remove from Yasukuni, which is why I asked about it before. It seems that my recollection was correct. Even worse is the assertion by the priests there that the souls cannot be "disinterred," so to speak.

The more problematic issues are the fact that apparently the mechanism for honoring the Class A war criminals (I still don't fully understand this, is it simply a matter of names on a list?) were secretly added by the priests. Admittedly, my understanding of Shinto is poor, but doesn't the emperor have a prime role to play in Shinto? Thus, if the emperor protests and refuses to visit Yasukuni, doesn't Yasukuni lose legitimacy as a Shinto-approved shrine for the war dead? And if that's the case, why do successive PMs feel obligated to visit? They have the perfect political cover, in that the emperor himself refuses to visit.

The nail in the coffin (sorry, I couldn't resist) is that the shrine is privately run. This gives Japan a perfect opportunity to establish a state-run, geopolitically-acceptable alternative (such as Chidorigafuchi) that the politicians (as representatives of the country) can visit, while also providing an outlet for those who wish to honor the war dead to do so without any political implications. I can't imagine China and South Korea would continue to complain if such a solution were found, and if they did complain, it would be eternally clear that the complaints stem from political motivations, not ethical ones.

Very good questions , I'll do the best to answer them.

I thought I had heard before that there was nothing physical to remove from Yasukuni, which is why I asked about it before. It seems that my recollection was correct. Even worse is the assertion by the priests there that the souls cannot be "disinterred," so to speak.

This is correct. The internment of the 14 individuals is the internment of their souls and it was a religious procedure that was conducted by Shinto priests. The physical remains of unidentified Japanese war dead are at Chidorigafuchi Senbotsusha Boen, or otherwise known as the Chidorigafuchi Cemetary. In fact, the reunification of Japanese soldiers' remains is a continual process, as more and more remains are acquired from former overseas territories in Southeast Asia as well as in the Pacific. The Chidorigafuchi Senbotsusha Boen may hold some of the physical remains (which are cremated remains, actually) of some unidentified soldiers, but the Yasukuni Shinto Shrine is a religious site where the souls of these dead, and many others whom participated in many other previous foreign wars have their souls / spirits interred. It is a different place , wherein Yasukuni has a greater significance being that it is a religious site.

The more problematic issues are the fact that apparently the mechanism for honoring the Class A war criminals (I still don't fully understand this, is it simply a matter of names on a list?) were secretly added by the priests. Admittedly, my understanding of Shinto is poor, but doesn't the emperor have a prime role to play in Shinto? Thus, if the emperor protests and refuses to visit Yasukuni, doesn't Yasukuni lose legitimacy as a Shinto-approved shrine for the war dead? And if that's the case, why do successive PMs feel obligated to visit? They have the perfect political cover, in that the emperor himself refuses to visit.

Yes, the Emperor does have a pivotal role, more so a keystone role in the Shinto Religion. But I feel that I need to address something; the issue of the Emperor and Divinity. The Japanese concept of the divinity of the Emperor (Tenno) is often misunderstood by Westerners. Neither the Emperor nor most of the people of Japan ever thought that the Emperor was a God in the sense of being a supernatural supreme being. In fact, from the 6th century onwards it was accepted that the Emperor (Tenno) was descended from the kami (in this context, referring to gods; deities), was in contact with them, and is often inspired by them. This is integral to the role of the Emperor in the religious rites of Shintoism. This did not make him a god , a deity himself, but rather, imposed on him the obligation of carrying out some certain rituals and devotions in order to ensure that the omi kami (gods; deities) looked after the welfare of the nation (Nippon; Nihon) and thus would ensure the nation's prosperity. If i were to compare the role of the Emperor to a western correlate, it would have to be the role of the Roman Emperors or the Roman Popes who held (in regards to the former) and hold the title of Pontifex Maximus, which in latin means, "Chief Priest". That is really the spiritual role of the Emperor of Japan, he is an example of Pontifex Maximus, as he is the Chief Priest on the Shinto Religion, his prayers go directly to God (gods; deities).

If one examines Japanese history, the Emperor's status as the direct descendent of the founding Kami was not reflected in his political power. In fact, until the meiji restoration, the Emperor has little power and the functions and role of the Emperor was that of spiritual - religious - ceremonial role. Tho the Meiji Restoration never officially declared that the Emperor was a kami or a god, it was during the Militant Years, during the Fascist Regime wherein the military government utilized State Shintoism and imposed onto the nation that the Emperor was Divine. It was in this period in the 1930s that people were told and taught that the emperor was Akitsu Mikami , which means "God made Manifest" or "God in the Flesh"; A human being in wihch the property of kami nature was perfectly revealed, but it was never said that the Emperor was neither omniscient or omnipotent. Again there is a difference in 'God' in context to Eastern (Shinto) religion to other Near Eastern (Abrahamic) religions wherein God was attributed with omnicient , omnipotent capabilities.

Thus, if the emperor protests and refuses to visit Yasukuni, doesn't Yasukuni lose legitimacy as a Shinto-approved shrine for the war dead? And if that's the case, why do successive PMs feel obligated to visit?

A very good question. The Emperor does not visit Yasukuni because of the political sensitivities related, but he does visit many other shrines that are not as sensitive. As for the politicians who visit, i cannot begin to understand the reason for their visits; i don't even know if they are even practicing in shinto or not, or if they do this to milk the political support from the nationalist sentiments of the nation. One thing is sure tho, as long as the 14 individuals are there, it will remain a source for nationalist support. The priests , who are in practice and theory , supposed to be "part of the world, but not in the world" should not be listening to nationalist , progressive views, but conduct their functions objectively. I can understand their opposition to the 'comprehensive' aspect of the shrine's role , as an abode for all the souls who were part of that war generation.

In my opinion, in order for this to be formally resolved, is if the Emperor not only implements a self-imposed ban, but should impose action and display his will. If the Emperor were to tell the priests in the shrine to remove the names, they would do so, without question. This would break precedent because the Emperor has, since the end of the war, tried to remain out of the political life or actively tried staying away from "active" role in politics. If that makes sense? I know, a bit confusing, lol.

But I have feelings that the Emperor may break his silence in this regard. I should say that the Emperor has always tried to be comprehensive in his address to the nation. He is not an ultra-nationalist, and he has almost a liberal mindset. If reading his journals , poems, gives me any perception to His Imperial Majesty's views. And he has not shied away from rebuking excessive nationalist feelings of former prime ministers; for example Koizumi, and even Abe.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

@Nihonjin1051 Thanks for the primer, it seems to confirm my thinking. To be honest, in order to keep the emperor out of politics, I don't think a drastic measure, such as interference by ordering the removal of the war dead (which the priests claim cannot be done, anyway), is necessary. All he has to do is continue to deprive Yasukini of official legitimacy, as the highest Shinto authority, by not visiting it. That's the passive component. The active component is to bestow official legitimacy on some other site, e.g. Chidorigafuchi, by visiting it. In other words, set an example for the political leadership.

The Chinese users here are very proud of China's pragmatism, and I believe they are sincere. China, as a pragmatic nation, will see the meaning behind such actions, and will gradually reduce its anti-Japan rhetoric. Likewise, South Korea may view this positively enough to seriously consider completing the US-Japan, US-SK defense triangle.

Of course, if China is not really a pragmatic nation, we will find out soon enough. And as I've implied before, the CCP leadership now may be pragmatic, but it may not always be pragmatic in the future. We may find that China's and South Korea's polity is too emotional to make the rational choice.

However, Japan can only control its own actions, and I believe a proposal such as the one I've outlined would win a lot of goodwill from the rest of the world, even if Japan's neighbors continue to nurture their grievances for political reasons.

 

[Kylin]

Just removing class A war criminals may not be enough since there are still over a thousand war criminals enshrined there. But it is still a step towards the right direction, and it will be welcomed by the Chinese people.

 

[kawaraj]

The 14 war criminals were guilty not only to the Asian lost lives, but also to millions of Japanese lost lives in WWII. I would put that to the bottomline. Abe government should communicate to neighbors on that front if he's sinsere of any regret for what his administration(some) have done over the last few years, and not a convience of earninmg voters from the middle.

 

[Brainsucker]

So, from what I read in here, I make a conclusion ( I don't know if it's right or not). Seeing it from religious point of view (I don't know about Shinto) that these 14 war criminals are actually disturb the resting souls in the shrine.

See, like Tojo. He was responsible for the death of millions Japanese live during WW2 just because he was the one who started it. By putting him into Yakusuni Shrine, he, basically make the other souls can't rest in their eternal slumber. But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm right, then I feel sorry for those souls who rest beside him.

 

[Aepsilons]

So, from what I read in here, I make a conclusion ( I don't know if it's right or not). Seeing it from religious point of view (I don't know about Shinto) that these 14 war criminals are actually rest Japanese heroes who were killed or dead because of what they're doing in WW2.

See, like Tojo. He was responsible for the death of millions Japanese live during WW2 just because he was the one who started it. By putting him into Yakusuni Shrine, he, basically make the other souls can't rest in their eternal slumber. But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm right, then I feel sorry for those souls who rest beside him.

You have a good grasp of it. Removing the 14 individuals is possible, perhaps by re-enshrining them somewhere else, at another location.

But that would be the step in the right direction.

 

[Genesis]

@Nihonjin1051 Thanks for the primer, it seems to confirm my thinking. To be honest, in order to keep the emperor out of politics, I don't think a drastic measure, such as interference by ordering the removal of the war dead (which the priests claim cannot be done, anyway), is necessary. All he has to do is continue to deprive Yasukini of official legitimacy, as the highest Shinto authority, by not visiting it. That's the passive component. The active component is to bestow official legitimacy on some other site, e.g. Chidorigafuchi, by visiting it. In other words, set an example for the political leadership.

The Chinese users here are very proud of China's pragmatism, and I believe they are sincere. China, as a pragmatic nation, will see the meaning behind such actions, and will gradually reduce its anti-Japan rhetoric. Likewise, South Korea may view this positively enough to seriously consider completing the US-Japan, US-SK defense triangle.

Of course, if China is not really a pragmatic nation, we will find out soon enough. And as I've implied before, the CCP leadership now may be pragmatic, but it may not always be pragmatic in the future. We may find that China's and South Korea's polity is too emotional to make the rational choice.

However, Japan can only control its own actions, and I believe a proposal such as the one I've outlined would win a lot of goodwill from the rest of the world, even if Japan's neighbors continue to nurture their grievances for political reasons.

We are Pragmatic, that's why we don't give a damn whose name is written on a piece of paper. But how are we suppose to be a great power when a nation openly celebrates people we deemed criminals to us, and not just by us but by the world.

But either way Japanese Chinese tension isn't because of some stupid shrine, if it were, we would not have wanted Japanese investments, they didn't do this yesterday. Just look at India for what isn't pragmatic.



Now for this question? Why those 14? Why not the ones that fought against the Americans, isoroku yamamoto has more of a case to be there as he was closer to being a career soldier than the other ones were, like Rommel, I'll tell you why, Japan fears and needs the US, but Japan doesn't fear the repercussion of Chinese actions, they know we are coming from a position of weakness in 1980s and 1990s, and non existent in the 70s, but guess what the tables have turned, and from where I'm standing, it's a direct challenge on China's place in the world.

That's the problem we need to fix, removing those guys mean nothing if future actions don't take China into consideration. But this will come with time, twice the GDP is not so intimidating, but 4 times it might be, especially if all of the cities that have direct contact with Japan are as developed if not more than Japan's own.

So 2025-2035 would be a good period.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

We are Pragmatic, that's why we don't give a damn whose name is written on a piece of paper. But how are we suppose to be a great power when a nation openly celebrates people we deemed criminals to us, and not just by us but by the world.

But either way Japanese Chinese tension isn't because of some stupid shrine, if it were, we would not have wanted Japanese investments, they didn't do this yesterday. Just look at India for what isn't pragmatic.

I understand your first paragraph, but not your second. Are you saying that China will not be satisfied no matter what Japan does, that this whole protest over Yasukuni was a political charade?

Now for this question? Why those 14? Why not the ones that fought against the Americans, isoroku yamamoto has more of a case to be there as he was closer to being a career soldier than the other ones were, like Rommel, I'll tell you why, Japan fears and needs the US, but Japan doesn't fear the repercussion of Chinese actions, they know we are coming from a position of weakness in 1980s and 1990s, and non existent in the 70s, but guess what the tables have turned, and from where I'm standing, it's a direct challenge on China's place in the world.

That's the problem we need to fix, removing those guys mean nothing if future actions don't take China into consideration. But this will come with time, twice the GDP is not so intimidating, but 4 times it might be, especially if all of the cities that have direct contact with Japan are as developed if not more than Japan's own.

So 2025-2035 would be a good period.

The US doesn't care about Yasukuni because:
1) The US was victorious in the war
2) The American people are less emotional than the Chinese people
3) The American people are not attached to history to the degree that Asians are

To the degree the US cares about Yasukuni, it's because it inflames tensions between Japan and South Korea, and Japan and China, which makes the US goal of stability harder to achieve.

Your conclusion appears to imply that China is intent on revenge, one way or another, no matter what Japan does today. Is that correct?

 

[Genesis]

I understand your first paragraph, but not your second. Are you saying that China will not be satisfied no matter what Japan does, that this whole protest over Yasukuni was a political charade?

It wasn't a charade, think of the shrine as a a spit in the face, it wasn't what caused it and it won't end with it because you wipe it off.

The problem is why the smaller guy dared to spit in our face in the first place, and that hasn't changed, at least in perception.

I mean it will get better once this is done, but it won't end it. I know Japanese people still think of China as a weaker nation, until that mindset changes, well.

The US doesn't care about Yasukuni because:
1) The US was victorious in the war
2) The American people are less emotional than the Chinese people
3) The American people are not attached to history to the degree that Asians are

To the degree the US cares about Yasukuni, it's because it inflames tensions between Japan and South Korea, and Japan and China, which makes the US goal of stability harder to achieve.

Your conclusion appears to imply that China is intent on revenge, one way or another, no matter what Japan does today. Is that correct?

Exactly US was victorious we weren't, either we make up that prestige some other way, or we will go straight to the source.

There are reasons boxers sometimes fight multiple times with the same people, not an all time great until you avenge that loss.

As to less emotional and sentimental, you don't really believe that do you? 9/11, a thousand people died, if Japan manages to kill off 30 million Americans, and America didn't avenge this loss, I like to see how well Americans handle it.

All we did was made some deals that favors us in BUSINESS, which btw is what everyone does including Americans, and all of a sudden we are the bad guys. I'm thinking the Japanese invasion is just a little bit worse, no?



Americans today are in many ways more attached to "history," have you watched sports? Read a news on brands? Waldorf Astoria, will be sold to China, sentimental reasons, some don't like it. Believe me nothing is sacred in China that we won't sell, and we proved it in the last 30 years.



This perception of Chinese being sentimental and more emotional is wrong.

BTW, when we compared our Kunming knife attack to 9/11 a lot of Americans were pissed cause 1000 Americans died in 9/11 rather than a few dozen.

We see things how we want to see it.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

It wasn't a charade, think of the shrine as a a spit in the face, it wasn't what caused it and it won't end with it because you wipe it off.

The problem is why the smaller guy dared to spit in our face in the first place, and that hasn't changed, at least in perception.

I mean it will get better once this is done, but it won't end it. I know Japanese people still think of China as a weaker nation, until that mindset changes, well.

Please be specific. What will end it?

Exactly US was victorious we weren't, either we make up that prestige some other way, or we will go straight to the source.

There are reasons boxers sometimes fight multiple times with the same people, not an all time great until you avenge that loss.

I don't follow. Again, does this mean inevitable war, to compensate for the previous loss?

As to less emotional and sentimental, you don't really believe that do you? 9/11, a thousand people died, if Japan manages to kill off 30 million Americans, and America didn't avenge this loss, I like to see how well Americans handle it.

All we did was made some deals that favors us in BUSINESS, which btw is what everyone does including Americans, and all of a sudden we are the bad guys. I'm thinking the Japanese invasion is just a little bit worse, no?

Americans today are in many ways more attached to "history," have you watched sports? Read a news on brands? Waldorf Astoria, will be sold to China, sentimental reasons, some don't like it. Believe me nothing is sacred in China that we won't sell, and we proved it in the last 30 years.

This perception of Chinese being sentimental and more emotional is wrong.

The US got tired of Afghanistan and Iraq within 5 years, and wanted to get out. Contrary to worldwide propaganda, we weren't in either country to slaughter Muslims until our blood-lust was sated, we were there to ensure that the security threat against us was eliminated. To a large degree, it was. After we set up new governments, they asked us to leave--and we did (or are doing so). I don't see anything emotional or sentimental about that.

Without debating the reasons, the US departure from Vietnam was generally interpreted as a humiliating loss. 20 years later, we put aside animosities and established relations with Vietnam. Less than one generation later, the US is looking to strengthen security relations with Vietnam, a complete turnaround from previous hostilities. I don't see anything sentimental or emotional about that.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US fought a war to neutralize a security threat. Within 5 years, that threat was neutralized, and within 15 years of the end of the war, the US signed a security treaty with Japan. I don't see anything sentimental or emotional about that.

Within 10 years of defeating Nazi Germany, the US included West Germany in its security alliance in Europe (NATO). I don't see anything sentimental or emotional about that.

China has been nurturing grievances against the West for wrongs committed over a century ago. Since the US was not part of such wrongs committed against China, China had to invent "wrongs" to whip up the masses against the US. What is that, if not emotional?

Japan committed atrocities in China in WWII. Almost 4 generations, a peace treaty, and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment by Japan in China later, China continues to foment hatred against Japan. What is that, if not emotional? So many Chinese users here (possibly the majority) want to see China push the US out of Asia and become the hegemon of the region. That will never be possible unless Japan is brought into China's orbit, and China doesn't seem interested in warm relations with Japan. Not exactly a calculating, strategic decision. I would call that emotional, or at least not pragmatic.

I have yet to understand the cost-benefit analysis of China's maneuverings in the SCS. There is probably oil and gas there, but how much is there, and what would it cost to extract and secure, vs. the other sources available to China? The "nine-dash line" is pure nationalism (i.e. emotion), and the only thing calculated about it is how many neighbors it can alienate. I have no doubt that China can grab a large portion of the SCS, but at what long-term cost? China doesn't seem to care, as the SCS is about "restoring pride."

Of course, I'm speaking of emotion on a strategic level, not ethnically. Individuals of each side can be equally emotional, whether it's personal, or sports. But I would say that American political leadership (and the support it derives from its people) has been generally more cold-blooded in its approach to geopolitics than China (and the support it derives from its people).

BTW, when we compared our Kunming knife attack to 9/11 a lot of Americans were pissed cause 1000 Americans died in 9/11 rather than a few dozen.

We see things how we want to see it.

How did this "Americans were pissed" manifest itself? Were there large-scale boycotts of Chinese goods?

 

[Genesis]

Please be specific. What will end it?



I don't follow. Again, does this mean inevitable war, to compensate for the previous loss?

I don't know what exactly will be needed, but seeing as how Japan is not getting any stronger, while we are getting stronger by the day, we are not the ones in a hurry.

Doesn't have to mean war, but it does have to mean a recognition of some kind, something like joining the AIIB and becoming the second most important member rather than hogging the ADB and pretending like nothing's changed.

That only works if it were true.

The US got tired of Afghanistan and Iraq within 5 years, and wanted to get out. Contrary to worldwide propaganda, we weren't in either country to slaughter Muslims until our blood-lust was sated, we were there to ensure that the security threat against us was eliminated. To a large degree, it was. After we set up new governments, they asked us to leave--and we did (or are doing so). I don't see anything emotional or sentimental about that.

I never said you were, and we are not in the Japan conflict to slaughter Japnese, we want the prestige that comes with being a great power and right now that's being denied, it's a very real reason.

If we are talking security threats, I'm sure a modern country that's hostile to you is more threatening than some moron with a bomb that could as easily not work as work.

Without debating the reasons, the US departure from Vietnam was generally interpreted as a humiliating loss. 20 years later, we put aside animosities and established relations with Vietnam. Less than one generation later, the US is looking to strengthen security relations with Vietnam, a complete turnaround from previous hostilities. I don't see anything sentimental or emotional about that.

Loss or not, Vietnam is still a hole and US is the sole world power. We put it behind us too if Japan was weaker, but it isn't, it's developed.

Now that's on us mostly, we were dealt the better hand and Mao folded with a pair of aces.

If Vietnam is a world power and US is down in the dumps I'm sure you'll see it differently.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US fought a war to neutralize a security threat. Within 5 years, that threat was neutralized, and within 15 years of the end of the war, the US signed a security treaty with Japan. I don't see anything sentimental or emotional about that.

Within 10 years of defeating Nazi Germany, the US included West Germany in its security alliance in Europe (NATO). I don't see anything sentimental or emotional about that.

Again, not the same, Bradley got rocked by Pacquiao, but he won the first fight, nobody thought he was better, and he's still got the chip on his shoulder.

On the other hand Floyd never feels anything like that cause he destroys all of his opponents.

Our situation is different.

If we are to judge different situations by the same criteria, than can we say Americans are all insane gun slingers that kill on sight cause you guys like and have guns.

We have different history, and circumstances and hence what's over there and here must be different.

China has been nurturing grievances against the West for wrongs committed over a century ago. Since the US was not part of such wrongs committed against China, China had to invent "wrongs" to whip up the masses against the US. What is that, if not emotional?

As if there are no emotional Americans, but we do that cause you stand in the way between us and greatness, it wouldn't have matter if the one standing in front was our mother, we still go after her.

Japan committed atrocities in China in WWII. Almost 4 generations, a peace treaty, and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment by Japan in China later, China continues to foment hatred against Japan. What is that, if not emotional? So many Chinese users here (possibly the majority) want to see China push the US out of Asia and become the hegemon of the region. That will never be possible unless Japan is brought into China's orbit, and China doesn't seem interested in warm relations with Japan. Not exactly a calculating, strategic decision. I would call that emotional, or at least not pragmatic.

Japan will do so in time, soon they will realize as much as the US like to pretend it's an asian power it is not, China is, it doesn't help that we will soon have more cash than you regardless.

China Japan best friends was the tone of the Deng administration, many including my father was shocked Japan ever invaded China.

The political situation has changed, China must achieve great power status for our brands to take off, and whoever standing in the way is going to have to go.

We want great power status not for emotional reasons, but for very practical reasons, brand name, resources, currency, and many other things that the US enjoys that we don't.

I would say 40 years ago the wound is a lot fresher than now, especially back then many who lived then are still alive and today they are either dead or close to it.

I have yet to understand the cost-benefit analysis of China's maneuverings in the SCS. There is probably oil and gas there, but how much is there, and what would it cost to extract and secure, vs. the other sources available to China? The "nine-dash line" is pure nationalism (i.e. emotion), and the only thing calculated about it is how many neighbors it can alienate. I have no doubt that China can grab a large portion of the SCS, but at what long-term cost? China doesn't seem to care, as the SCS is about "restoring pride."

Of course, I'm speaking of emotion on a strategic level, not ethnically. Individuals of each side can be equally emotional, whether it's personal, or sports. But I would say that American political leadership (and the support it derives from its people) has been generally more cold-blooded in its approach to geopolitics than China (and the support it derives from its people).

SCS doesn't mean SCS to us, it means prestige, the fact Philippines can even think of resisting, really speak volume doesn't it. Two tug boats and they are challenging the might of the Chinese navy, essentially they are telling us that our ships don't work, which is why the great power would come in handy.

How did this "Americans were pissed" manifest itself? Were there large-scale boycotts of Chinese goods?

lol, did we boycott America cause we were pissed you don't understand out situation? No, Japan is the one standing in the way and Saudis are the ones that bombed you, why would you boycott Chinese goods.

 

[Aepsilons]

I don't know what exactly will be needed, but seeing as how Japan is not getting any stronger, while we are getting stronger by the day, we are not the ones in a hurry.

Doesn't have to mean war, but it does have to mean a recognition of some kind, something like joining the AIIB and becoming the second most important member rather than hogging the ADB and pretending like nothing's changed.

That only works if it were true.



I never said you were, and we are not in the Japan conflict to slaughter Japnese, we want the prestige that comes with being a great power and right now that's being denied, it's a very real reason.

If we are talking security threats, I'm sure a modern country that's hostile to you is more threatening than some moron with a bomb that could as easily not work as work.




Loss or not, Vietnam is still a hole and US is the sole world power. We put it behind us too if Japan was weaker, but it isn't, it's developed.

Now that's on us mostly, we were dealt the better hand and Mao folded with a pair of aces.

If Vietnam is a world power and US is down in the dumps I'm sure you'll see it differently.




Again, not the same, Bradley got rocked by Pacquiao, but he won the first fight, nobody thought he was better, and he's still got the chip on his shoulder.

On the other hand Floyd never feels anything like that cause he destroys all of his opponents.

Our situation is different.

If we are to judge different situations by the same criteria, than can we say Americans are all insane gun slingers that kill on sight cause you guys like and have guns.

We have different history, and circumstances and hence what's over there and here must be different.




As if there are no emotional Americans, but we do that cause you stand in the way between us and greatness, it wouldn't have matter if the one standing in front was our mother, we still go after her.




Japan will do so in time, soon they will realize as much as the US like to pretend it's an asian power it is not, China is, it doesn't help that we will soon have more cash than you regardless.

China Japan best friends was the tone of the Deng administration, many including my father was shocked Japan ever invaded China.

The political situation has changed, China must achieve great power status for our brands to take off, and whoever standing in the way is going to have to go.

We want great power status not for emotional reasons, but for very practical reasons, brand name, resources, currency, and many other things that the US enjoys that we don't.

I would say 40 years ago the wound is a lot fresher than now, especially back then many who lived then are still alive and today they are either dead or close to it.




SCS doesn't mean SCS to us, it means prestige, the fact Philippines can even think of resisting, really speak volume doesn't it. Two tug boats and they are challenging the might of the Chinese navy, essentially they are telling us that our ships don't work, which is why the great power would come in handy.




lol, did we boycott America cause we were pissed you don't understand out situation? No, Japan is the one standing in the way and Saudis are the ones that bombed you, why would you boycott Chinese goods.

Why do I sense a bit of hostility in your post. Your references to a boxing match leads me to correlate that with you indirectly pointing to a need for another war? You seem to be engrossed with grandeur , prestige or the acquisition thereof. Remember , tomodachi, respect and honor is earned, and violence and war should not be glorified, but seen only as a necessity when defending agains certain odds. War shouldnt be used to showcase one's military, if so, then one isn't any different to the dictators and warlords of old.

 

[Aepsilons]

It wasn't a charade, think of the shrine as a a spit in the face, it wasn't what caused it and it won't end with it because you wipe it off.

The problem is why the smaller guy dared to spit in our face in the first place, and that hasn't changed, at least in perception.

I mean it will get better once this is done, but it won't end it. I know Japanese people still think of China as a weaker nation, until that mindset changes, well.



Exactly US was victorious we weren't, either we make up that prestige some other way, or we will go straight to the source.

There are reasons boxers sometimes fight multiple times with the same people, not an all time great until you avenge that loss.

As to less emotional and sentimental, you don't really believe that do you? 9/11, a thousand people died, if Japan manages to kill off 30 million Americans, and America didn't avenge this loss, I like to see how well Americans handle it.

All we did was made some deals that favors us in BUSINESS, which btw is what everyone does including Americans, and all of a sudden we are the bad guys. I'm thinking the Japanese invasion is just a little bit worse, no?



Americans today are in many ways more attached to "history," have you watched sports? Read a news on brands? Waldorf Astoria, will be sold to China, sentimental reasons, some don't like it. Believe me nothing is sacred in China that we won't sell, and we proved it

So you're saying that Japanese people visiting Yasukuni is equivalent to us spitting in your face, right?

Let me infer a rhetorical question, do you think some people are insulted when some Chinese leaders visit the graves of Mao? Or what about the monument to the 1979 Sino Vietnam War, or what about the monument to the 1962 Sino Indian War?

I don't think Germans get angry when Russians visit their war commemorations , nor do we Japanese care when the Americans celebrate anniversary events in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Rabaul, Pearl Harbor or the like. We commemorate with each other, actually.

It's disturbing to read your post. And as what @LeveragedBuyout pointed out, over the 30 some years Japan played a role in helping China industrialize, the hundreds of billions of dollars worth in investments, the political collaborations, the agreements of good faith such as the moratoriums, the fishing agreements et al. But your post illustrates that there still is a fomenting of hatred for Japan and for us Japanese.

You incessantly refer to our honoring of our soldiers' souls as "spitting in your face". You should read more into Japanese concept of honor and respecting the dead. After all you are dealing with us Japanese. Perhaps there is a dichotomy between us and you Chinese in regards to that filial duty.

I fear that even after these 14 individuals are removed, some Chinese will protest and future politicians will milk the history for political clout. In that regards, what's the point at all?

After all, Japan, in my opinion , has done already so much for China.

Then to hear such discouraging points of view such as those that you showed. I can't help but feel a disgusting taste in my mouth after reading such words.