What's the cutoff point?

don't ask me, the whole concept of forgiveness is for lame-o's, imho.

here's a quote from awesome wikipedia:
"To determine the treatment of frostbite, prisoners were taken outside in freezing weather and left with exposed arms, periodically drenched with water until frozen solid. The arm was later amputated; the doctor would repeat the process on the victim's upper arm to the shoulder. After both arms were gone, the doctors moved on to the legs until only a head and torso remained. The victim was then used for plague and pathogens experiments."

Japanese 'doctor': "Sorry about that dude!"
Dead Torso guy: "Oh ok thanks, i forgive you!" [hugs]
Dead Torso guy: "Oh wait, I have no arms. LOL"

In what respect? Time? None. The only cutoff point is the existence of the political entity. Japan today, as a political entity, is the same political entity Japan that existed when the Japanese government carried out its atrocities. You wouldn't say that after x years a person is no longer culpable for their crimes, would you?

For a reverse example, calling on the Russian Federation to answer for the crimes of the USSR wouldn't work, because the Russian Federation is not the USSR. The USSR no longer exists; demanding that it answer for its crimes now is akin to demanding that a dead man apologize: the actions aren't excused just because he died, obviously, but you're not going to get anywhere demanding that a dead man apologize. Nor do you demand that the dead man's son answer for the crimes of the dead man.

Neither apply here. Japan now, as a political entity, is the same entity from the 1940s. Japan the political entity today is not a successor state to Japan of the 1940s; it is the same entity and thus is still accountable. And since it's never legitimately apologized, demanding that today's Japan apologize is perfectly reasonable.

Huge topic to discuss & it seem'd as if there were 2 discussions, one on the US civil war, which i want to stay clear of, but i'll buy into the Japanese in WW2 & whether it's relevant 60 years on.
declarations, i am an aussie, & my uncle had got into the Australian airforce in the mid 1930's during the economic depression as an apprentice aircraft fitter, got into aircrew & flew Beaufighters in Papua New guinea, was flight sgt & flew a damaged aircraft
back to base with injured pilot on one mission.

first off, atrocities during the war, the Japanese army was, with few exceptions, brutal, it's treatment of military prisoners, & civilian populations is shameful, in my opinion.

my parents generation have always had huge respect for the US for two things from WW2, first is sacrifice made by thousands of US service personell fighting Japanese in WW2, many of whom were station'd here, eg marines that went in first at Guadalcanal, hung on after naval support was blitz'd by Japanese & fought there for some time were pulled out & sent to Melbourne for rest, recovery, built back up to strength then thrown into another island invasion, Pelelu ???

second is great generosity of US after WW2 with Marshall plan etc,
put that in today's dollars.

that war against Japan was when we realised the British could not defend Australia
and we needed the US as an ally.
that's why today we are the 10th largest contribitor of forces to Afghanistan,
the 2nd largest special forces contributor after US & largest non NATO contributor.

the uncle that flew in Beaufighters had 2 sons, one was conscripted & fought in infrantry in Vietnam, ( go google firebase (s) Coral & Balmoral )
he said many times that we should never forget Nurse Bullwinkle
and that if we want to protect our society & our culture we will always have to be prepared to defend it & send young men to fight
go google Nurse Bullwinkle, an aussie nurse, survivor of a group of captured army nurses order'd to wade into the sea & machine gun'd by Japanese army

the Japanese people today, there's a lot to admire about their efforts since the war
is their society perfect, no, have they made enough of an effort to discuss, apologise, make reparation for the war crimes committed, probably not, do we let that get in the way of moving to a better relationship & understanding, hell no.

about 20 years ago i knew a bloke, Ivan, who was a "human tractor"
so he's 6 foot 4 or 5 inches tall, almost as wide, giant of a man, black hair.
he had spent 2 years or so trying to grow marijuana in the bush, south of Darwin
he would occasionally appear in Darwin, organise 4 to 6 months supplies & then it is possible i may have driven him with said supplies several 100s km south,
then off to an old abandoned WW2 airfield where he would start his trek through the bush to his campsite(s), with new wheelbarrow paint'd camoflage, Ivan & barrow heavily laden.
something always went wrong with his crops, wild camels trampl'd & ate one crop
Ivan was always keen to do me a favour, bit scary at times, like he'd ask "is anyone giving you problems" and even if there were i would never offer up a name.
i casually mention i'm playing golf, Ivan demands to see my bag of clubs, & sets to & cleans & polish's & the next thing i have a caddie
Ok, i am a mug golfer. i am deadly field hockey player, but way wrists & arms work is so different when hitting with power.
i play this charity thing. Ivan visits pro shop, gets book of Rules & ettiquete of Golf and gives pro & staff slightly intimidating looks & grunts. then he has me on practising putting, which is the one part i am good at while he studies Rules & map of course etc.
we go to wait for tee off, Ivan finds out we have been changed in list & delay'd, so we are off to practice driving & irons.
we come back and at first tee we find i am in foursome with an asian guy who turns out to be Japanese and is oldest in group, an aussie & an indian, we have a split for partners and it's mixed couples.
& we have the Japanese guy. his game is good. mine is hopless but i match the indian guy & the other aussie is OK
i am the only guy with a caddy. me & the jap guy win, mainly because Ivan busts the other pair for Rule infringements enough times to add 12 penalty shots to their total & each time he never warns them but let's them move the ball the wrong way or whatever it is & even Ivan has figured out he has to speak quietly without swearing, so he just casually pulls them up on each breach & politely suggests they add a penalty shot, and most people don't refuse Ivan & they are no exception
because the Jap guy was my partner Ivan insist'd on toting both bags and gave him more respect & increasingly better service as we play'd.
we have a few drinks after, but Ivan refuses to join us, he is caddie & will gaurd our clubs is his attitude. the Japanes guy gives me a card with details for his Brisbane office, says he is coming back to Australia all the time & playing golf, mainly in Queensland & he hates rude teenage boys who are caddies, but liked Ivan as a caddie.

i explain it later to Ivan and give him the card.
compared to what he was getting out of his efforts with marijuanua in the bush & the hard effort of that, he can make a lot more money acting a role, being a servant to rich japanese business guys, he can give his temporary "master" the edge on his master's fellow japanese golfers because he is the most impressive servant, just in physical size, knows the rules better & gets the gear clean'd spotlessly & gets into all those other caddie things, why not give it a go ???
i impress upon Ivan the phsychology of some of it. That's it, Ivan starts studying Japanese with all his relentless determination, 3 months later Ivan rings the Japanese guy's office, there's a (basic) free apartment waiting for Ivan 5 minutes walk from the Gold Coast golf club at which the Japanese guy is a member, please come.
off Ivan goes. six months later Ivan flies back to visit me, shows me $25k cash, half his just received retainer for future services and news that he is getting a better apartment (& still rent free)
so there's a story about how the phschological needs of rich japanese businessmen who play golf gave a "minor criminal" an honest profession & stunning income for what is involved in terms of sweat'd labour

+1 Eden. Well put.

"Point of order: Japan did not start World War II, so it would be strange if they apologized for it."

How do you figure they didn't start it? They invaded China in 1937. That was the first act of the war.

@Eden - Is it the same political entity? The government of Japan was redefined after the war when, in 1947, a new Constitution was written. One would argue that, with power stripped from the Emperor (it now resides in the PM), Japan is under an entirely new governmental system.

Mind, I'm not giving them a pass. They owe the world a true and formal apology issued by Diet, but we will never see that.

OK; when I take over a country in Webdip, I am also accontable for what the previous owner did. Check.

Well exactly, how can there be a 'true apology' when they don't believe they did anything wrong? What would an apology achieve anyway?

A true apology would have to acknowledge wrongdoing, obviously. What it would achieve is political stability and possibly pave the way for political integration in East Asia. A main sticking point as to why relations aren't better in East Asia is the unwillingness of Japan to own up to its past.

"The government of Japan was redefined after the war when, in 1947, a new Constitution was written. One would argue that, with power stripped from the Emperor (it now resides in the PM), Japan is under an entirely new governmental system."

Japan likes to say it has the longest continuously existing monarchy in the entire world. That's hard to say if Japan's existence ended in 1945 and began again in 1946. Constitutional changes do not create new entities. Iran for example didn't have to reapply to the UN in 1979.

I was just playing devil's advocate there, Putin. My (admittedly limited) research shows an unwillingness on the part of Japan to admit any specific wrongdoing outside the sex-slave trade and the treatment of POWs, and even that has only been by individuals, not by the government in question.

And, yeah, they have the longest continuing monarchy, but it was pretty much neutered in 46/47.

I agree an apology would have some official utility. But thats it. Japanese culture is probably 100 years away from a truly sincere apology, if ever.

It's just like the confederates in south carolina. IMO, let those japs have what they want. In 30 years everyone who suffered will be dead anyways

Putin, the 1995 Murayama Statement however was a proclamation of Japan government policy from a unanimous decision by the Cabinet, the executive branch of Japan's parliamentary form of government. It was not merely a personal apology, but official government policy that has never been renounced by subsequent Cabinets.

Here is an excerpt of the most relevant paragraphs:
"During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humility, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology. Allow me also to express my feelings of profound mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, of that history.

Building from our deep remorse on this occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, Japan must eliminate self-righteous nationalism, promote international coordination as a responsible member of the international community and, thereby, advance the principles of peace and democracy. "

I agree with you that a war apology resolution passed by the Diet (the legislative branch, of which all Cabinet ministers are members) would greatly improve intra-Asian relations. However I do not think it would pave the way for political integration. I believe most Asian countries would not find that desirable given China's current political system.

and by the way, if you are japanese and you don't give a shit about any of this buddhist remebrance stuff, then you're just japanese. if you do care, then you're a jap.

XAQ, you remind me of the man who once tried very earnestly to explain to me the difference between black people and niggers. But to me he was just a bigot.

"I was just playing devil's advocate there, Putin"

No kidding.

"
And, yeah, they have the longest continuing monarchy, but it was pretty much neutered in 46/47."

That's irrelevant. The power of the Emperor pre-1945 is exaggerated anyway. He wasn't making decisions, but ratifying them after they had already been made. Furthermore, most of the ex-militarists were reinstalled in the new government, so even the constitutional change argument doesn't really work. Japan's regime is a new wine in an old bottle.

"IMO, let those japs have what they want."

Racial slurs are so edgy, brah.

"Putin, the 1995 Murayama Statement however was a proclamation of Japan government policy from a unanimous decision by the Cabinet, the executive branch of Japan's parliamentary form of government. It was not merely a personal apology, but official government policy that has never been renounced by subsequent Cabinets."

A few things.

1 - Cabinet decisions require unanimous approval. This apology was denied by members of Maruyama's cabinet, such as Eto Takami. Eto said Japan did good things for Korea during colonization, and rejected the apology. Education minister Yoshinobu Shimamura, just a week before Maruyama's "apology" said that Japan was not necessarily the aggressor in the war and that apologies were not useful.

2 - Perhaps even more importantly, what demonstrates the lack of authenticity about this "apology" was that at the very same time that Maruyama issued this statement (which only expresses 'personal feelings' in the text anyway), that his own ministers (such as Hashimoto) made pilgrimages to the Yasukuni shrine. This kind of two-faced "apology" always happens, and I don't know how anyone can think this to be genuine.

3-In a separate statement, Murayama was the only PM to express an apology for an actual crime - the sex slaves. Shinzo Abe rescinded that statement in 2007, when he said there were no sex slaves. But yes this apology was a personal statement, and never official government policy to begin with. But not only Japanese PMs but the Japanese courts have given the one finger salute to former sex slaves.

4 - Japanese politicians and ministers routinely make claims that Japan "liberated Asia" from the colonial powers, and ministers have publicly expressed doubt about certain warcrimes, like the Rape of Nanjing. Some have resigned over these statements, but the fact is it continues to happen. Japanese memorials emphasize their own victimhood rather than their aggression. The outrage over the attempted official apology in 1995 through the Diet speaks volumes about their attitude.

1. It's a slur because anyone who supports war crimes should be referred to with a derogatory term.
2. The Japanese culture is one of shame.They never apologize because they're too ashamed to.

Putin, I agree with your opinion that Japan should do more to apologize, and that this would improve relations with other countries in Asia. Where we differ is on the nature of the Murayama statement; you do not consider this a "real" apology while I think it is a clear milestone in Japanese policy that has been upheld by all subsequent cabinets.

Your arguments are focused on behavior by politicians. I agree that the LDP that ruled Japan for nearly 50 years after the war is beholden to rightwing elements. It is significant that Murayama was not part of the LDP, in fact he was the first Socialist prime minister in 50 years. The more recent Democratic governments, while ineffective in their own ways, have also consistently emphasized better relations with Asia.

In my experience, the actions of the LDP politicians you and others raise do not represent the views of most Japanese people, on the contrary there is lively debate on many of the issues raised on this thread, particularly during the time Koizumi was making his "personal" visits to Yasukuni. If you ever visit here, the Hiroshima Peace Museum presents a very balanced view of the war and is clear about Japan's responsibility as well as crimes its forces committed.

You can condemn the public statements and actions of LDP politicians, and I will join you, but generalizing to an entire country arguing that "Japan gets away with everything" is off-base.

"Putin, I agree with your opinion that Japan should do more to apologize, and that this would improve relations with other countries in Asia. Where we differ is on the nature of the Murayama statement; you do not consider this a "real" apology "

If the statement is a real apology 'subsequently upheld by every cabinet' (despite the frequent visitations to Yakusuni) then why do you still say Japan needs to do more? Obviously there is something lacking there.

"Your arguments are focused on behavior by politicians."

Ministers in Murayama's own cabinet, yes. It's impossible to claim that the apology was a 'cabinet decision' when his own cabinet members rejected the apology. It's also difficult to make this claim when his own cabinet ministers were visiting Yasukuni at the same time this 'apology' was made. You can't make it seem like the Yasukuni visits are a few fringe rightwing LDPers when there's been widespread visitations by Japanese politicians for years after Murayama's supposed 'apology'.

It's difficult to say this doesn't reflect Japanese opinion but only that of the LDP when the Japanese public keeps electing the LDP and has done so in virtually every post-war election. The "socialist" government of Murayama itself was a coalition government with LDP members, and was quickly thrown out of power not long after the apology took place. Japanese politicians are never punished electorally for their blatant disregard of the feelings of the Chinese and Korean victims of WWII.

The fact that LDP PMs have repeated Murayama's speech, like a mantra, demonstrates nothing other than a convenient way for Japan to dodge any real effort at genuine contrition. A Prime Minister, like Koizumi, will trot out this speech verbatim, and within twelve hours we'll have half the cabinet going to pay their respects to 1068 convicted war criminals. Japanese politicians never mention China, never mention Korea, never mention specific crimes. It's always at a press conference, because they won't dare visit a memorial for victims of their atrocities.

And yeah I say Japan gets away with everything because there's no way on earth Germany could ever do such things. There's no way German ministers could routinely visit memorials for Nazi war criminals in the middle of a vague "apology", and people in the west would insist that this was sufficient, that this was "genuine" and not a farce. The EU implemented sanctions on Austria for the comments of a single fringe governor. If Japan was held to the same standard they'd be under perpetual sanctions. There's no way anybody in the West would ever say things like the Jews need to "get over" German war crimes, and that the only reason they keep bringing it up is to "play the nationalist card". This is routinely said about China. China's feelings are routinely demeaned, by both Japan and their western apologists, for being inauthentic, for being opportunistic and cynical. And don't even mention Korea, because the world doesn't even demand that Japan recognize North Korea as a country and refuses to compensate Korean victims of their atrocities. Imagine if Germany refused to recognize Poland or Israel or any of its victims as a country. Imagine if the mayor of Germany's largest city called Jews or Slavs "rats". Imagine if a textbook denying the Holocaust sold 600,000 copies in Germany.

All is forgiven and forgotten in Japan in the name of anti-communism. We can't ever admit that China and North Korea might have a legitimate gripe about anything.

Actually Putin, Koizumi apologized in South Korea in 2001 and North Korea in 2002. I know you will say that those apologies were "insincere" because he also visited Yasukuni, but these are the facts. Most recently Kan apologized to South Korea last year on the 100th anniversary of the colonization.

Just as many people will never forgive Germany for Nazi crimes no matter how many apologies, many Chinese and Koreans will never be able to forgive Japan. I will be the first to condemn Japan's 20th century crimes and if this thread has enhanced awareness for people who may not have known the history I think it is a good thing. For my part I believe 1995 represented a clean break and the beginning of a real process for Japan to reconcile with Asia. You seem to disagree, and that's ok but I wanted to share my perspective because yours is not the only one.

The idea that Japan, as a country or as a government, has "forgotten" about its crimes or is not remorseful is not borne out by the evidence in my view. The state of affairs is not where you would like it to be, but I believe more progress is being made than you are willing to acknowledge.

How they can see? :o

"OK; when I take over a country in Webdip, I am also accontable for what the previous owner did. Check."

Wrong. There's a pretty clear distinction between the two situations being proposed here. Obviously the current PM is not personally responsible for the war crimes of the Japanese government of the 1940s. That would be the equivalent of the "I'm responsible for the actions of the previous player" you're trying to equate. It has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Japan is Japan is (still) Japan. [On that note, regarding Draugnar's question: while in practice Japan is in a lot of ways different now, as a political unit, than it was in 1945, and it did indeed undergo significant changes to its constitution, it never became a new political unit. As Putin already noted, Japan prides itself on being the oldest monarchy still standing in the world. By their own admission they're the same unit.] Thus, Japan -- again, as a political unit -- is still accountable for its actions.

Your analogy fails in another respect as well; when you take over for another player in Diplomacy, that action is more equivalent to a complete regime change and the birth of a new political unit than a mere passing of the torch after an election or resignation. After all, for the country to even be available for takeover, it has to have gone into civil disorder, also known as anarchy. Anarchy is, obviously, the absence of a unifying political unit. Thus for you to take over a country in CD is equivalent to creating a new political entity -- which, as I discussed before, is a different issue (see USSR/Russian Federation example).

Yeah, a more comparable comparison to the new player would be Iraq. The new Iraqi government is not responsible for the crimes commited by the old regime under Saddam Hussein. The US is responsible for that (we put him in power after all).

"The US is responsible for that (we put him in power after all)."

*pops popcorn*

You're right with the analogy, too, by the way. That's the idea.

I think it's easier to say that we kept him in power than put him in power, but six of one half dozen of another.

I actually spent some time in Japan, which is why I avoided saying much after my initial remarks. My experience is that the people and government privately acknowledge the atrocities and culpability, but to publicly acknowledge it would be nigh impossible in their culture. I was at the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, and it struck me that they don't really point a finger at who was responsible for it while still mourning the action (let's not get into whether or not it was justified full stop, it's enough to acknowledge that the average Japanese is likely not super happy about it regardless).