You know WWII Is Forgotten When

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Maybe if the Japanese said sorry it would help. Apologising - and meaning it - goes a long way to starting the healing process. When you get high ranking Japanese politicians and military personnel from time to time stating that the Japanese did nothing wrong, then sure, it's going to inflame feelings just a tad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan

Beat me to it. Making assumptions is bad, mmkay.

warspite1

Indeed making assumptions is bad. I trust you read the whole article? If statements of apology from senior politicians are then undermined by contradictory pronouncements (or indeed mealy mouthed statements designed to limit or deny the previous apology) from equally as important Japanese statesmen, then you can understand the Chinese or whoever being a tad confused, angry or downright disbelieving.

Have you ever heard a senior member of the German Government deny the Holocaust or the existence of death camps or whatever? I may be wrong but I don't recall that happening.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Indeed making assumptions is bad. I trust you read the whole article? If statements of apology from senior politicians are then undermined by contradictory pronouncements (or indeed mealy mouthed statements designed to limit or deny the previous apology) from equally as important Japanese statesmen, then you can understand the Chinese or whoever being a tad confused, angry or downright disbelieving.

Have you ever heard a senior member of the German Government deny the Holocaust or the existence of death camps or whatever? I may be wrong but I don't recall that happening.

So...got sources? That aren't crackpots, I mean.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Indeed making assumptions is bad. I trust you read the whole article? If statements of apology from senior politicians are then undermined by contradictory pronouncements (or indeed mealy mouthed statements designed to limit or deny the previous apology) from equally as important Japanese statesmen, then you can understand the Chinese or whoever being a tad confused, angry or downright disbelieving.

Have you ever heard a senior member of the German Government deny the Holocaust or the existence of death camps or whatever? I may be wrong but I don't recall that happening.

So...got sources? That aren't crackpots, I mean.

warspite1

I'm no expert on this subject - nor am I hugely close to Asian politics, so whether this site is full of crackpots talking about crackpots I don't know - but I guess its likely to be a reliable as Wiki [;)]

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrim ... truth.html

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Indeed making assumptions is bad. I trust you read the whole article? If statements of apology from senior politicians are then undermined by contradictory pronouncements (or indeed mealy mouthed statements designed to limit or deny the previous apology) from equally as important Japanese statesmen, then you can understand the Chinese or whoever being a tad confused, angry or downright disbelieving.

Have you ever heard a senior member of the German Government deny the Holocaust or the existence of death camps or whatever? I may be wrong but I don't recall that happening.

So...got sources? That aren't crackpots, I mean.

warspite1

I'm no expert on this subject - nor am I hugely close to Asian politics, so whether this site is full of crackpots talking about crackpots I don't know - but I guess its likely to be a reliable as Wiki [;)]

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrim ... truth.html

Your link mentions nothing after 2001.

In the thirteen years between that article and today, you've had the following appologies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... apan#2000s

In Japan's defence, it did take the UK till 2013 to issue an apology to the Mau Mau, and as far as I can tell it's not gotten around to saying sorry for it's conduct in Malaya either.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



So...got sources? That aren't crackpots, I mean.

warspite1

I'm no expert on this subject - nor am I hugely close to Asian politics, so whether this site is full of crackpots talking about crackpots I don't know - but I guess its likely to be a reliable as Wiki [;)]

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrim ... truth.html

Your link mentions nothing after 2001.

In the thirteen years between that article and today, you've had the following appologies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... apan#2000s

In Japan's defence, it did take the UK till 2013 to issue an apology to the Mau Mau.

Not to mention all the others for which there weren't apologies... which matters about as much as alleging that Japan hasn't apologized for this or for that. Which is to say, hardly at all.


I think Sir Warspite1 the First may have missed the point in time when Wikipedia became rather reliable. This isn't 1997 anymore. Wikipedia has a legion of editors and software that trawls for errors, not to mention change tracking. It gave rise to the whole [citation needed] meme. Wikipedia has citations, which is more than can be said for tons of "news" sites out there, not to mention social media links.

And as good as pacificwar.org.au might be as a source of general information, it's a website run by one damn guy. Which makes it prone to parroting his views, and his views alone, which may or may not be skewed, biased, incorrect, or not updated with new facts. I'm not saying he doesn't have any credible sources, or that the website is garbage (it's not), just that getting all of your information from there is weak. He only lists a handful of sources, and his articles don't have citations referring to specific passages (he is only one guy, after all). The information from a source with many people contributing is simply going to be more refined and have a wider variety of sources backing up the claims.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



So...got sources? That aren't crackpots, I mean.

warspite1

I'm no expert on this subject - nor am I hugely close to Asian politics, so whether this site is full of crackpots talking about crackpots I don't know - but I guess its likely to be a reliable as Wiki [;)]

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrim ... truth.html

Your link mentions nothing after 2001.

In the thirteen years between that article and today, you've had the following appologies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... apan#2000s

In Japan's defence, it did take the UK till 2013 to issue an apology to the Mau Mau.

warspite1

Re post 2001, please read the article you yourself posted.

Clearly I posted as I did in my initial post because of how I understood Japan has acted. If that position is wrong (or at least less black and white than it appears at first glance) then that is a good thing. However it is interesting that if the apologies have been as profuse and as sincere as you claim, why are there so many Koreans, Chinese et al who think otherwise? I have no doubt - and never have had any reason to doubt - that the Germans are sincere about their contrition re WWII. Why don't Asians generally feel the same way about Japan?

Interesting debate.

EDIT: for clarity

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

I'm no expert on this subject - nor am I hugely close to Asian politics, so whether this site is full of crackpots talking about crackpots I don't know - but I guess its likely to be a reliable as Wiki [;)]

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrim ... truth.html

Your link mentions nothing after 2001.

In the thirteen years between that article and today, you've had the following appologies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... apan#2000s

In Japan's defence, it did take the UK till 2013 to issue an apology to the Mau Mau.

Not to mention all the others for which there weren't apologies... which matters about as much as alleging that Japan hasn't apologized for this or for that. Which is to say, hardly at all.


I think Sir Warspite1 the First may have missed the point in time when Wikipedia became rather reliable. This isn't 1997 anymore. Wikipedia has a legion of editors and software that trawls for errors, not to mention change tracking. It gave rise to the whole [citation needed] meme. Wikipedia has citations, which is more than can be said for tons of "news" sites out there, not to mention social media links.

And as good as pacificwar.org.au might be as a source of general information, it's a website run by one damn guy. Which makes it prone to parroting his views, and his views alone, which may or may not be skewed, biased, incorrect, or not updated with new facts. I'm not saying he doesn't have any credible sources, or that the website is garbage (it's not), just that getting all of your information from there is weak. He only lists a handful of sources, and his articles don't have citations referring to specific passages (he is only one guy, after all). The information from a source with many people contributing is simply going to be more refined and have a wider variety of sources backing up the claims.

warspite1

Re the others for which there weren't apologies - I will not rise to that. Remember glass houses and all that...

You asked for a source and I just posted one. As I tried to explain above, my view, impression, call it what you will, has been built up over many years - rightly or wrongly. Maybe the Japanese are getting a bad press... or maybe not. I don't know for certain, but I have a view which I was expressing.

I sincerely hope that your view is correct and Japan are finally behaving correctly and with contrition...

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

I'm no expert on this subject - nor am I hugely close to Asian politics, so whether this site is full of crackpots talking about crackpots I don't know - but I guess its likely to be a reliable as Wiki [;)]

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrim ... truth.html

Your link mentions nothing after 2001.

In the thirteen years between that article and today, you've had the following appologies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... apan#2000s

In Japan's defence, it did take the UK till 2013 to issue an apology to the Mau Mau.

warspite1
However it is interesting that if the apologies have been as profuse and as sincere as you claim, why are there so many Koreans, Chinese et al who think otherwise? I have no doubt - and never have had any reason to doubt - that the Germans are sincere about their contrition re WWII. Why don't Asians generally feel the same way?

Politics. It suits various agendas to keep the resentment going on some level.

Asian diplomacy is a bit messy. In a way, it resembles early European diplomacy except on a much smaller scale. In Europe nations argue over stretches of territory - in Asia it's all about off-shore rocks (and the natural resources around them).

Japan and South Korea are still souring over the Liancourt Rocks, which is probably never actually going to get resolved and will never actually come to any serious conflict over, other than politicans trying to win points.

With the PRC, however, keeping resentment going against Japan is a big focus. The PRC want the Senkaku islands, Japan isn't for giving it up, and the US isn't for letting Japan let them go either. For the PRC, if they keep the resentment against Japan for it's conduct in WW2 going, it will be easier for them to get their population to go along with a shooting war for the Senkaku islands - which is unlikely. Both nations are too economically invested in each other to have a proper war.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
when Wikipedia became rather reliable.

HAHA HA HAHA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHA… ha… ahem.

A cite almost totally OT and definitely relevant to topic:

tm.asp?m=1593432&mpage=1&key=

The guy eventually deleted his posts in thread so it’s hard to follow along with the discussion today, but it definitely highlights why wiki should never be considered a reliable source for anything.

Jim

Edit: The guy gets caught around post #68

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
when Wikipedia became rather reliable.

HAHA HA HAHA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHA… ha… ahem.

A cite almost totally OT and definitely relevant to topic:

tm.asp?m=1593432&mpage=1&key=

The guy eventually deleted his posts in thread so it’s hard to follow along with the discussion today, but it definitely highlights why wiki should never be considered a reliable source for anything.

Jim

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as ... 97332.html

So you'd not use the Encyclopedia Britannica either?

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
So you'd not use the Encyclopedia Britannica either?

Users can't go in and edit Britannica to fit their narrative and then point to the article as a source.

Jim

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
So you'd not use the Encyclopedia Britannica either?

Users can't go in and edit Britannica to fit their narrative and then point to the article as a source.

Jim

Clearly you don't know how to use Wikipedia. If someone doesn't pass the sniff test but still has a source, check the source. If you aren't, then you're not using it correctly.

Wikipedia is a great source of accumulated knowledge. It's basically a one stop shop, and if you ever need to prove the information that you get there, just go check the sources. If an article is marked as needing sources or is a stub or otherwise has a warning at the top of the page, then you need to be more circumspect.

It's as easy as Wiki'ing for something, scrolling down to the cited sources, and verifying that the cited sources are credible (I've not seen one that isn't credible, but I'm sure it can happen). It's WAY easier than googling for something, where you have to deal with algorithms and page rankings and other search engine garbage. And it's faster than searching in an academic engine.

You could probably learn a lot if you adopted that practice.

By the way, your "cited link" makes no sense. Did you just pull a random thread and pretend that linking it here was the same as cited articles on Wikipedia? Because it's not. Citations on Wikipedia get verified.



Oh, how's Britannica doing these days, anyway? Fading away, right?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the others for which there weren't apologies - I will not rise to that. Remember glass houses and all that...

You asked for a source and I just posted one. As I tried to explain above, my view, impression, call it what you will, has been built up over many years - rightly or wrongly. Maybe the Japanese are getting a bad press... or maybe not. I don't know for certain, but I have a view which I was expressing.

I sincerely hope that your view is correct and Japan are finally behaving correctly and with contrition...

This is an example of reporting bias. You don't see articles about apologies being made because nobody wants to read something that isn't sensational. You do see articles about some bumbling government official with a deranged version of history in his head making stupid claims or some dumb offhand remark. Call it the Outrage Effect. Saying something outrageous causes outrage and gets circulated. Saying something that everyone expects you to say doesn't make any waves.

Saying that Japan should be going around the world, hats in hand, forever more simply because they did bad things 70 years ago is absurd. Obviously, appropriate behavior is expected and that includes expressing (ideally sincere) remorse for doing bad things, but expecting that of them while not expecting that of every country in the history of the world is hypocrisy. Every country has done awful things to other people.

[danlongman]

I remember a story somebody told me a long time ago, long before the novel "The Mouse That Roared".
It seems a man was visiting another town an he pulled into a gas station and asked the cashier "What are the folks like around here?"
The cashier replied "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said, "Well they are a bunch of shifty, no good, lazy, lying bums."
The cashier said, "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
Later on another visitor came in. "What are the folks like around here?," he asked.
Once again the cashier responded "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said "They are real friendly, industrious and honest folks."
The cashier said "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
My experiences in Europe and North America have been a lot like that.
The Brits sell crappy submarines.

[JeffroK]

The thread started about the japanese selling Subs to OZ.

But the US and many other countries have been allowed to sell weapons to Japan for 60 years.[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the others for which there weren't apologies - I will not rise to that. Remember glass houses and all that...

You asked for a source and I just posted one. As I tried to explain above, my view, impression, call it what you will, has been built up over many years - rightly or wrongly. Maybe the Japanese are getting a bad press... or maybe not. I don't know for certain, but I have a view which I was expressing.

I sincerely hope that your view is correct and Japan are finally behaving correctly and with contrition...

This is an example of reporting bias. You don't see articles about apologies being made because nobody wants to read something that isn't sensational. You do see articles about some bumbling government official with a deranged version of history in his head making stupid claims or some dumb offhand remark. Call it the Outrage Effect. Saying something outrageous causes outrage and gets circulated. Saying something that everyone expects you to say doesn't make any waves.

Saying that Japan should be going around the world, hats in hand, forever more simply because they did bad things 70 years ago is absurd. Obviously, appropriate behavior is expected and that includes expressing (ideally sincere) remorse for doing bad things, but expecting that of them while not expecting that of every country in the history of the world is hypocrisy. Every country has done awful things to other people.

warspite1

But I never said that [&:] The point is, they have said sorry, as the article you yourself supported, confirmed. So far so good. BUT equally that article confirms that there has been plenty of senior politicians and senior military personnel (not just some bumbling civil servant types) who have then watered down - or destroyed - the effects of that apology. If an apology is made and meant and kept to, then:

a) there is no need for repeated apologies for ever more, and
b) there is no room for anyone to attack Japan for not having said sorry - unless, as has been remarked earlier, its all just politics and trouble stirring.

[danlongman]

When is the UK going to apologise for the submarines they sell?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: danlongman

I remember a story somebody told me a long time ago, long before the novel "The Mouse That Roared".
It seems a man was visiting another town an he pulled into a gas station and asked the cashier "What are the folks like around here?"
The cashier replied "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said, "Well they are a bunch of shifty, no good, lazy, lying bums."
The cashier said, "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
Later on another visitor came in. "What are the folks like around here?," he asked.
Once again the cashier responded "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said "They are real friendly, industrious and honest folks."
The cashier said "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
My experiences in Europe and North America have been a lot like that.
The Brits sell crappy submarines.

warspite1

Only to suckers so stupid that they will buy any old crap - even our crappy crap [;)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: danlongman

I remember a story somebody told me a long time ago, long before the novel "The Mouse That Roared".
It seems a man was visiting another town an he pulled into a gas station and asked the cashier "What are the folks like around here?"
The cashier replied "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said, "Well they are a bunch of shifty, no good, lazy, lying bums."
The cashier said, "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
Later on another visitor came in. "What are the folks like around here?," he asked.
Once again the cashier responded "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said "They are real friendly, industrious and honest folks."
The cashier said "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
My experiences in Europe and North America have been a lot like that.
The Brits sell crappy submarines.

Maybe you are correct , I wouldn't know , as I've never bought one. But if you are talking about hunting them , then I spent most of my life hunting them. And I can say with NO equivocation , that the most difficult to find submarines were always British. Maybe that's the crew, but they were very quiet. Quiet is not something you find in a junker submarine usually. So maybe your right , and they sell crappy submarines. Then that must make them the absolute best sub drivers that I've ever encountered. Some how that doesn't feel right. They are among the best , but not necessarily head and shoulders above the best. Except for the Unseen class , I've never heard of anyone complaining about their boats. Not South Africans, Chileans or Australians. Only the Canadians seem to have a problem. And they didn't have a problem with the Oberons. I know , as I've talked to crews from each of the afore mentioned subs. And when I hunted "Unseen" boats (still under the British flag) they didn't seem to have any problems. They were VERY quiet , and frankly drove us nuts.


So I guess your right, the Brits build crappy boats, eh? [:D]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
By the way, your "cited link" makes no sense. Did you just pull a random thread and pretend that linking it here was the same as cited articles on Wikipedia? Because it's not. Citations on Wikipedia get verified.

I cited an example of why wiki is totally unreliable and is considered a joke when pointed to as a source for anything. Link the dam source not wiki if you want people to take you seriously, it isn’t the reader’s job to verify your opinions it is your own. I think you’ll find most people will begin to discount your opinions in scholarly debates if you continually link wiki and try and tout it as a reliable source.

It was relevant because I cited an example that happened here in our own little WitP community and not on some other forum covering a totally different topic. The fact is this stuff happens all the time all over the web. It’s an off-shoot of sock puppetry (people reviewing their own work or hiring people to do it) and is becoming more and more common. In fact I saw a television commercial just the other day for a new online company that was selling their services to “create good content” for their clients. So expect to see more and more of this behavior.

Any open source site like wiki will be inundated with this fraud if these up and coming business ventures find it profitable to sell their false good reviews services to companies that have online identities.

Jim