Talk:Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes

This reeks of anti-Japanese sentiment. jengod 17:20, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article is non-encyclopedic in that it sets forth a series of contentions without sources or facts. I'm not sure if this can even be rewritten into shape. 209.149.235.254 21:20, 19 Apr 2004(UTC)

Very interesting title if we can understand the stance of US goverment to the people of each defeated nation. But this article is written with anti-japanese emotion, by poor knowledge formed by Taiwanese education, and the contents is not essential, which result in tracing outward appearance. At a glance, there are many mistakes, though I'm not a historical specialist. It's politically charged editing. Did Japanese citizen massacre other race? Did you know Japan has not to pay any compensations by the treaty, which was intented by US government? Did you know Japanese children are taught that

"Japanese were the man who killed neighbors whom we should love. The criminal are the emperor, and your grand father."

And this comparison was often used by anti-japanesest in Japan or issue-exported neighbor country from Japan. Criminal worship? Nonsence. You are going to rob identity from Japanese. JDobby 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unfair to delete the page, so I added Japanese POV for neutrality.Poo-T 19 May 2004

Someone wrote additional writing within Japanese-side text without discussing. Some comments were just emotional/personal POV, with labelling "Japanese revisionist". But at least, he pointed one good point. This page should not focuse on China-Japan relation so much. I agree. The reason I wrote so much related to china, was simplly, most of thw writings in this page was written by Chinese POV, Chinese cultured people. But the Wiki Title is simply comparing Germany and Japan. The problem is, how we discuss about Japanese war-crime without talking about China and Korea. The Official complaints about Japanese Post-War processing, and Japanese Textbook come from only China and Korea. As a result, for Japanese, discussing the WW2 means 'talking mainly about China and Korea'.

Point 1. 'Korea was legally annexated as a part of Japan' My writing "Korea was a part of Japan" makes "a History student" crazy. This is not the place about Korean History, but we can discuss about it. At first, which law can rule Japanese annexation as illegal? (Don't use "ex post facto law"/"retroactive effect"). As far as I understand, annexation with permission of the local king, was not even needed in the world at that time(1905/1910). The only thing needed was, just accepted by Europe/US/Russia. Japanese annexation was accepted by them. Kellogg-Briand Pact tried to clarify "invasion is bad" in 1928. It is one of the differnce between France/Nazis and Korea/Japan. You wrote "King Sunjong. But considering the fate of his parents, the legality of the treaty is no more than a legal fiction". I've never heard about such reason to deny bilateral treaty. The king officially accepted the annexation. If your saying can be accepted, "Treaty of San Francisco" can be illegal, as Japanese Emperor accepted with bad grace. :P) I suggest you to go to History of Korea, and continue to discuss about it with your wiki-name, not as annonymous. Generally, you should show sources for your opinion, especially, as "a history student".

Point2 'Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea' is valid. Korea and Japan agreed about compensation, and Japanese government complies with all related agreements. Your saying is "The South Korean negotiators at that time was part of illegal military coup members, a small group of inexperienced soldiers easy to bribe or swindle. Picking such a counterpart as representative of Korea was at least partly the responsibility of then Japanese government.". It means, "Present Koreans hate the junta in 1960's, so international treaties under the military government are invalid, if Koreans dislike them". It's just a self-serving ideology for Koreans.-Poo-T 25 May 2004

Move or complete rewrite?

from user talk:Jiang:

I have considered what you've said regarding the VfD on Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan.

While I agree that what's in the article namespace should not remain there, my desire that the valuable pieces of information within the article not be lost overrides my inclination to delete the article.

You stated, "The info should probably be discussed somewhere at WW2 or a related article on history." I don't see how it could properly be included in World War II. I'm thinking it might be possible to include it in Axis Powers. Do you have any suggestions for pages that could absorb the information in the article after it were reformatted and NPOVed?

Otherwise, if the article must remain independent, I actually am willing to rewrite it and at least attempt to make it into a suitable article. This would probably have to correspond with a name change to something like Axis postwar policies. In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts.

Acegikmo1 15:44, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see this article as mainly highlighting how Japan has been unrepetant while Germany has. The focus is mainly on Japan and what it has not done. the problem with putting this in "Axis Powers" or "Axis postwar policies" is that it after the war, the Axis ceased to exist. Maybe Post-war policies of former Axis Powers? Sounds a little long... Of course, we're dealing with treatment of war crimes and not policies in general so we need something more specific.

Another thing we could do it to insert sections on compensating for war crimes in History of Germany since 1945 and History of Japan. problem is that I'm not sure where it would fit into the Japan article. Maybe the first order of business is to rewrite what's here and then move it later. --Jia ng 16:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)