Does or will east asia get along?

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

... Which irks me to no end since the CCP is always harping on about "China's peaceful rise". With the new KMT government controlling Taiwan, you'd think that both sides would begin to make compromises and scale down the bellicosity, but so far it's only been Ma's administration (which I supported during the elections) bowing down to the CCP's demands whilst hundreds of missiles continue to be pointed at Taiwan. Peaceful reunion on equal terms, my a***; it's clear the CCP is eyeing Taiwan with greedy, power-hungry eyes.

You and me both. China's belligerence towards Taiwan has always puzzled me to a degree. They resort to all sorts of sabre-rattling, but every educated observer knows full well that there's no teeth to any of that, so it seems like awfully counter-productive diplomatic measures. What's even more weird is that China is probably going to get its wish sooner or later (probably later) anyways, so there doesn't seem to be anything but some silly principle that shapes their stance.

Where I disagree is that I don't think that China has any real intention of ever militarily invade Taiwan, so their only option is a peaceful reunification.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Japan do not do any holocausts. During the East Asian conflict, the original objective was to repel foreign western powers from colonizing people, but things turned out somewhat differently. Perhaps, a little tragic..

Eh, no; that's not true at all. While the stated objective may have been some warm and fuzzy goals, only the naive would actually believe them. The only thing that can be said in Imperial Japan's favor is that there wasn't any sort of systematic plan for genocide from the central government.

Then again, it's not as if Imperial Japan was some sort of monolithic organization. In fact, a lot of policy decisions that would normally have been made at high levels of government were instead made by relatively junior officers on the ground.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Hong Kong can be considered a political tool of China or perhaps, more of a minion. The place can be considered a representative when it comes to foreign exchanges, such as business trades. If things cannot be solved amicably, then China goes on with its military threats which hopefully will not be necessary in China's point of view, since they are more focused on the economy this era, not war.

You are aware that China doesn't have the military capability to do much, don't you?

[Lathdrinor]

For example let's look at the present World wide economy crisis, who is it to blame?
To be honest I belieive every single person on this planet should be found accountable.
Do you really think a politician running for office is able to face his supporter in the eye telling them that we are all to blame and we should repent?
Of course not.
It's we the general populous that needs to wisen up and face our own mistakes and not ask who is to blame.

The present financial crisis was started by a massive speculative bubble in the US. You can blame Americans for spending beyond their means, taking loans that they can't repay, etc. but this kind of argument ignores that it is also the responsibility of the banks to regulate the level of speculation. Decades of sub-prime lending and trading led to the present implosion, and there were warnings. To this end, as an American, I don't see why some poor peasant in India or tribesman in Africa should take blame for America's follies. No, we are not all equally responsible.

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Japan do not do any holocausts. During the East Asian conflict, the original objective was to repel foreign western powers from colonizing people, but things turned out somewhat differently. Perhaps, a little tragic..

I have to concur with 4Tran: it's a bit naïve to believe in that.

Or, if we go down those lines, should we say that Mao Zedong's objectives were (1) to create a socialist Chinese utopia and (2) to repel the capitalist, imperialist influence of foreign powers... but "things turned out somewhat differently, a little tragic"? Actually, that's exactly what the CCP still claims to a certain extent, what with Mao being "two-thirds good, one-third bad" according to the official propaganda -_-

Anyway, nationalistic rows over history are ultimately pointless. People are free to believe in any version of history they like, as long as they maintain a healthy respect for each other's countries and cultures. I wouldn't give a damn if my Japanese friend prays at Yasukuni, since the fact that we are friends means that we respect each other as fellow humans.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Hong Kong can be considered a political tool of China or perhaps, more of a minion.

Sadly true. It's also very typical of the Chinese government to expect HK to do its bidding "for the economy's sake". It's always about the economy, economy, economy, and Hong Kongers are gullible bait because money is king.

[Lathdrinor]

During the East Asian conflict, the original objective was to repel foreign western powers from colonizing people, but things turned out somewhat differently. Perhaps, a little tragic..

It is necessary to realize that people always make up moral excuses for what they're doing (it helps them sleep at night, etc.). Thus, the European empires told themselves that they were civilizing the world - bringing the light of Western enlightenment to a dark and savage place. Thus, Hitler told himself that he was only doing the will of evolution, that he was simply sticking up for the Aryan race in the "natural struggle to the death between the races." Thus, the Communists, as others have pointed out, believed that they were creating an utopia, a class-less world free from greed and social discrimination. They were simply liberating the unwashed masses, that have so long suffered under the oppression of the land lords, the nobles, and the capitalists.

If there's one thing to keep in mind about good and evil, it's that almost nobody thinks of themselves as "evil." Both sides of a conflict believe that they are a force for good, that they are fighting to build a better world. What differentiates people, in history's eyes, is the results of their actions, for the "road to hell," so to speak, is paved with good intentions.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Lathdrinor

If there's one thing to keep in mind about good and evil, it's that almost nobody thinks of themselves as "evil." Both sides of a conflict believe that they are a force for good, that they are fighting to build a better world. What differentiates people, in history's eyes, is the results of their actions, for the "road to hell," so to speak, is paved with good intentions.

For once, I have to agree with you. During the Iraq war, both sides, whether it be the US forces or the people of Iraq, they each did a fair share of attacking innocent people, then goes off with the "for justice" attitude. On the other hand, it's not just them. Throughout history, every country and group of people do pretty much the same thing when it comes to war. Though there are many different versions of history, yet the conclusion can be obtained with little thinking. Neither side is good, neither side is bad, military conflicts are all preventable, yet nobody is willing to do so. I guess it can't be helped..

However, with Barack Obama elected in the US and will officially lead the country under his specially selected cabinet of socialists, conservatives, racially diverse and politically diverse people, hopefully the newly changed America will head in the right direction. The number of non-American supports of the US president-elect Barack Obama exceeds the number of American supporters on Election Day meaning that most people in the world have high hopes for the Obama Administration. Will this change bring forth a new era of politics and peace?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

So because it wasn't as "big" as the Holocaust, it should be overlooked and Japan is less at fault than Germany?

You're taking my words wrongly. Basically, the Holocaust is in the genocide class, while Unit 731 is not.



@ Shadow Minato: Those are one-sided views.

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

You're taking my words wrongly. Basically, the Holocaust is in the genocide class, while Unit 731 is not.

Very well, then. Perhaps it all boils down to whether you focus on the stated intent, the scale of the atrocities, or the simple fact that the atrocities happened...

(a) Stated intent: "Hitler intended out to wipe out the Jewish race" vs. "Japan's 'official motive' was to free Asia from western powers; the Chinese Communist Party's 'goal' was to create a socialist utopia".

(b) Scale of the atrocities: "The Nazis killed n million, the CCP killed n million, the Japanese killed n thousand..."

(c) The simple fact that atrocities happened: Let's face it: mass killings occured. I don't want to argue whether a thousand, a hundred thousand or a million died. But people died, they were killed brutally, for no reason, and it wasn't the consequence of one man's actions.

I suppose this is where people disagree. The "accused" will always point to a and b, the "accuser" will point to c (that said, hot-blooded nationalists on both sides will always concoct random numerical figures to amplify or diminish the "scale" of the atrocity).

[Tri-ring]

Ahh, For Japan's point B was always pointed out by the acuser(ROC later adopted by PRC) and that is where most of historical debate boils down to.

Nanking and 731 both historically occured that I concur but the numbers, who and how it happened leading to why is something I have a very different view with the accusers especially when you see ulterior political motives behind them.
Nanking was a battle field with many fleeing soldiers who removed their uniform and hid within the city walls.
Since battle occured there would natually be bodies of soldiers. Stating that those are all victims are simply foolish and said to be proof photographs that were later found to be doctored, completely out of context, or just plainly had nothing to do with the incident all adds doubt.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

[B][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]You're taking my words wrongly. Basically, the Holocaust is in the genocide class, while Unit 731 is not.

600 thousand experimental subjects. You are right, the act does not fit the description of genocide, but, it is an equally despicable act. Actually when you read through what happened around that time, the cruelty of Nazi Germans may look more humane compared to what the Japanese performed on their test subjects. And, I guess that says a lot about it.

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Ahh, For Japan's point B was always pointed out by the acuser(ROC later adopted by PRC) and that is where most of historical debate boils down to.

Then I shall rephrase...
The "accused" will always point to A and B, the "accuser" will point to B and C. With regard to B, hot-blooded nationalists on both sides will always concoct random numerical figures to amplify or diminish the "scale" of the atrocity, but in my opinion, this is ultimately pointless.

Stating that those are all victims are simply foolish and said to be proof photographs that were later found to be doctored, completely out of context, or just plainly had nothing to do with the incident all adds doubt.

The collective memory of a city is stronger than any photographs. Photographs can be doctored or used out-of-context, but the memories of Nanjing are too strong to neglect. These memories were not the product of brainwashing under the ROC or PRC... my grandfather, who was in Nanjing during the war, emigrated to Hong Kong soon after. Countless other emigrants who were never brainwashed can attest to - and agree on - what happened.

What memories cannot prove, of course, is the scale of the atrocities. That's why I don't want to haggle over how many people died. Suffice to say that civilians as well as soldiers were killed, by brutal methods, and not only in the heat of battle.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

600 thousand experimental subjects. You are right, the act does not fit the description of genocide, but, it is an equally despicable act. Actually when you read through what happened around that time, the cruelty of Nazi Germans may look more humane compared to what the Japanese performed on their test subjects. And, I guess that says a lot about it.

I wonder where that figure came out?
Especially when the US confiscated all documents it's sound more like a random number that was pulled out of a hat to say this is how large the incident was.
That is exactly what creates doubt on both sides.

[Yukinokesshou]

Good grief, just as I am saying that arguments over numbers are pointless, one such dispute has already broken out -__-. But I agree with Tri Ring on the point that such random numbers "pulled out of a hat" do more harm than good in inflaming both sides.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I wonder where that figure came out?
Especially when the US confiscated all documents it's sound more like a random number that was pulled out of a hat to say this is how large the incident was.
That is exactly what creates doubt on both sides.

I don't know the accuracy of the number 580 thousand mentioned at Wikipedia, but, if a figure as high as this is being mentioned, then the actual number is guaranteed to be a high one (average with the lower end, and you get ~400 thousand). And, even if the actual number is lower, would that make the act any more human or acceptable?

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I don't know the accuracy of the number 580 thousand mentioned at Wikipedia, but, if a figure as high as this is being mentioned, then the actual number is guaranteed to be a high one (average with the lower end, and you get ~400 thousand). And, even if the actual number is lower, would that make the act any more human or acceptable?

Oh jolly well, then, at least your last sentence is in the spirit of things!

Forget 400,000. Even if the figure is 5000, would that make the act more human or acceptable?

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

Good grief, just as I am saying that arguments over numbers are pointless, one such dispute has already broken out -__-. But I agree with Tri Ring on the point that such random numbers "pulled out of a hat" do more harm than good in inflaming both sides.

I don't think any number being mentioned is a random number. It should be based on research. And, considering the level of cruelty, it is extremely important to keep a record of the death toll, so that the acts would never be forgotten.

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

Oh jolly well, then, at least your last sentence is in the spirit of things!

Forget 400,000. Even if the figure is 5000, would that make the act more human or acceptable?

You are bound to hit a wall, in many people's heads, if you try to keep the number very low, especially if it is not that low. Because, some people have a tendency to put the guilt on a small number of people, hence reducing the role of a larger party, if the damage is presented as being small. But, if the actual scale is large, you cannot say the same thing, and you cannot mask the act easily. So, the figures actually draw the line between ignorance and importance. And if the numbers point to the importance, would you prefer to omit it or instead would you prefer to use it to emphasize the importance of the act?

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I don't know the accuracy of the number 580 thousand mentioned at Wikipedia, but, if a figure as high as this is being mentioned, then the actual number is guaranteed to be a high one (average with the lower end, and you get ~400 thousand). And, even if the actual number is lower, would that make the act any more human or acceptable?

First of all you need to get facts straightened out so to see the extent of the problem so to point how high in the chain of command were accountable.
That had never been done in any of the cases which leads to pointing the blaming to the entire nation and not the one who was directly responsible making it emotionally difficult to bury the hatchet.
Second numbers are also a factoring point in assuming the motive to the action which needs to be put out into the open for future prevention.

To my understanding the 731 unit did experiments on human subject to gain better understanding of the human atonomy for better survival in the battle field.
YES they used humans as guinea pigs.
I also believe they did field tests with biological and chemical weapons.(probably not in a large scale since if it was a science experiment they'll need to know the accurate number of casulties against the exact number of samples.)
The question was the 731 unit wasn't that big some where in the few thousands(?) and most had second assignments to maintain sanatory level at the front line so how could they have linked to so many deaths?
This leads to ulterior political motives on the accuser's side trying to paint a broader picture to manipulate the general populous to sway other agenda like what they did in the 90's so they can devert interest from Tiananmen square.

[kyon.haruhi.suzumiya]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

First of all you need to get facts straightened out so to see the extent of the problem so to point how high in the chain of command were accountable.
That had never been done in any of the cases which leads to pointing the blaming to the entire nation and not the one who was directly responsible making it emotionally difficult to bury the hatchet.
Second numbers are also a factoring point in assuming the motive to the action which needs to be put out into the open for future prevention.

To my understanding the 731 unit did experiments on human subject to gain better understanding of the human atonomy for better survival in the battle field.
YES they used humans as guinea pigs.
I also believe they did field tests with biological and chemical weapons.(probably not in a large scale since if it was a science experiment they'll need to know the accurate number of casulties against the exact number of samples.)
The question was the 731 unit wasn't that big some where in the few thousands(?) and most had second assignments to maintain sanatory level at the front line so how could they have linked to so many deaths?
This leads to ulterior political motives on the accuser's side trying to paint a broader picture to manipulate the general populous to sway other agenda like what they did in the 90's so they can devert interest from Tiananmen square.

^^ Just face it, 731 was evil. I'm a Japanese (at least half), (albeit pacifist) but at least I don't deny Japan's faults during WWII.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

First of all you need to get facts straightened out so to see the extent of the problem so to point how high in the chain of command were accountable.
That had never been done in any of the cases which leads to pointing the blaming to the entire nation and not the one who was directly responsible making it emotionally difficult to bury the hatchet.
Second numbers are also a factoring point in assuming the motive to the action which needs to be put out into the open for future prevention.

It is hard to understand your writing. Anyways, base on the pieces that I was able to extract: When a large number of victims is involved, on a major scale, it is quite likely that the number of people involved in the process should be quite high. And, that won't change whether the final count is 200 thousand or 600 thousand. That will also not change the cruelty of the acts. Similarly, if the scale is large enough, then the involvement will also be large enough to associate the act with the nation. Since the involved party came out from the same set. It seems I pointed out a reason why I don't like the intentional separation between Nazis and Germans.

[kyon.haruhi.suzumiya]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

It is hard to understand your writing. Anyways, base on the pieces that I was able to extract: When a large number of victims is involved, on a major scale, it is quite likely that the number of people involved in the process should be quite high. And, that won't change whether the final count is 200 thousand or 600 thousand. That will also not change the cruelty of the acts. Similarly, if the scale is large enough, then the involvement will also be large enough to associate the act with the nation. Since the involved party came out from the same set. It seems I pointed out a reason why I don't like the intentional separation between Nazis and Germans.

^^ even if you don't understand, it's fine. Japan's education system denies most wrongdoing of Japan in WWII anyway. I went thru HK, Singapore and Taiwan systems, in addition to Japan, so I think different from him too.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

It is hard to understand your writing. Anyways, base on the pieces that I was able to extract: When a large number of victims is involved, on a major scale, it is quite likely that the number of people involved in the process should be quite high. And, that won't change whether the final count is 200 thousand or 600 thousand. That will also not change the cruelty of the acts. Similarly, if the scale is large enough, then the involvement will also be large enough to associate the act with the nation. Since the involved party came out from the same set. It seems I pointed out a reason why I don't like the intentional separation between Nazis and Germans.

You're still pulling out numbers out of a hat without any supportive evidence.
As long as you are not able to point who are accountable then it will always be used with an ulterior political motives to attack a nation(Japan) linking present people who has nothing to do with the problem.
If you want to discuss it as the past you first need to be able to point a person or a group with faces who are accountable. Point out what exactly was the problem, the extent of the problem, the motive and who were the victims and again not a simple mass like the Chinese people in general. (were they soldiers in civilian clothing, were they mis-represented people, were they sympathizers or were they simply bystanders)
People can atone to a problem when they know what exactly was that problem but will not accept nor apology to a generalized situation say you were all evil and we are the victims therefore you all need to apologize till eternity.