manbe-kun-1.jpg

The mascot for an obscure Japanese town has caused a scandal after daring to say that Japan killed 20 million in a war of aggression, with 2ch and Japan’s online right banding together in a successful effort to silence him.

Manbe-kun is the image character created by the Hokkaido township of Oshamanbe (population: 6,354) in 2003 for PR purposes (in Japan these awful local government mascots are so common they have come to be known as “yuru-chara” – “lame mascot characters”).

manbe-kun-2.jpg

The character’s design is derived from local produce (crabs, scallops and the Siberian iris) and the character found itself pressed into the usual half-baked efforts to market an insignificant fishing port as a place of interest.

All this changed in late 2010, when Manbe-kun opened an official Twitter account.

Manbe-kun soon became notorious for his wicked tongue and provocative remarks, largely ignoring his duty to promote local scallop sales (although his mere existence is promotion itself) and instead becoming a minor Internet celebrity with almost 100,000 followers.

This all culminated in his remarks on the 14th of August (the day before Victory over Japan Day, which is celebrated as a national holiday in Japan as “End of the War Day”):

“Well, tomorrow is End of the War Memorial Day, so Manbe-kun is going to study!”

“I watched a documentary – back then Japan was just like North Korea is now!”

“However you look at it, everything started with Japan’s war of aggression. Thank you!”

“3,100,000 Japanese were sacrificed. Japan’s victims were 20,000,000 of the people of various Asian nations.”

manbe-kun-3.jpg

As might be expected of any public comment which fails to portray Japan as an innocent victim of American aggression and the liberator of Asia, this immediately provoked an enormous storm of criticism online:

“They’ve all been brainwashed to think this stuff in Hokkaido.”

“He crossed the line!”

“Filthy leftist!”

“Of course, it had nothing to do with not having any resources!”

“He’s gone too far, someone needs to reign him in!”

“He’s crazy!”

“Stop this fabrication. Apart from China it was all in the Pacific, and the armies were all whites anyway.”

“He must be a Korean!”

“The person writing all this stuff is definitely one of you lot…”

It appears all this went according to Manbe-kun’s keikaku, however:

“Today I trolled all the net right-wingers!”

This annoyed 2ch even more:

“Isn’t he some Korean monkey?”

“His views are so prejudiced and one-sided!”

“His hobby is fishing.” ["trolling" = "fishing" in Japanese]

“Is it OK for him to be doing this stuff?”

manbe-kun-4.jpg“Doesn’t he know his history? Dirty leftist.”

“This must be a new PR tactic. Making fun of war is the lowest!”

“I’m jealous of anyone who can get paid for saying such crazy things.”

“He’s pouring oil onto the fire by saying he might expose the names of complainers…”

“As expected of the great idiot detector.”

“He’s gone too far!”

“Inciting a thousands of rightists to protest there would bring in quite a bit of revenue…”

“What is with the suppression of free speech in our society?”

“This is the image character for a town though…”

“With over 80,000 followers he must have the most followers of any purely obnoxious Twitter user.”

“Nobody ever goes there so they think they can say what they want!”

Oshamanbe’s mayor (an independent) eventually issued an official apology for his remarks after receiving hundreds of complaints (and the usual death threats), saying “Manbe-kun’s Twitter remarks about the war have caused much worry and bother to everyone, so I must offer my apologies.”

manbe-kun-5.jpg

He went on to blame the PR firm running the account for the remarks, stressing that the remarks are not the views of the town, and to say Manbe-kun’s Twitter account is to be closed.

Manbe-kun’s site bears a similar apology from the PR firm, although it should be noted that both apologies avoid disputing the factual accuracy of his remarks – in fact, the PR firm’s boss gives says to a newspaper that “personally, I don’t think the remarks were in error, but it was inexcusable.”

The account has since reopened, although it is not clear if the irreverent remarks which have projected him to fame will continue.

This in turn prompted the expected triumphalism:

“A great victory!”

“So we won again!”

“Make him into the communist party’s mascot.”

“They took their damn time!”

“Serves him right!”

“It’s not a victory until the person behind the costume is exposed!”

“These threads keep going on and on, but nobody’s been able to deny that a Japanese dictatorship started wars of aggression.”

“What part of his ’3 million sacrifices and 20 million victims’ statement is leftist propaganda anyway? As usual, the net right is a pack of idiots…”


    Post Comment »
    228 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    17:11 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    The ironic part is that the most sensible person in japan is a wacky crab boy :)

    Avatar of Yoshii-kun
    Comment by Yoshii-kun
    15:01 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Of all things to be trolled by, it's a swollen teletubby with scallops for ears.

    Avatar of Megidola
    Comment by Megidola
    21:47 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    The trolling teletubby should be governor of Tokyo, it's more qualified than the current one.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:44 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    ^_^ Best comments ever

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:49 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    If only he goes to Tokyo to strangle and mutilate Ishihara to death like he's doing in the last picture except for realz.

    Avatar of BlaqCat
    Comment by BlaqCat
    14:17 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    So the "right" is full of crazy people in denial over factual truth in japan as well? lol

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:19 17/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Don't forget the black beady crab eyes for tits, and the fact that it doesn't wear any underwear and is flashing us in pic 1 :P

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:19 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Well, I for one am surprised any japanese is willing to admit that Japan was wrong in its aggression.

    Do you know what Chinese tourist say when they visit Hiroshima? that they deserve it.

    It's not a pretty history, but the Japanese should accept it and stop being defensive. A lot of Asians still harbor resentment to the Japanese people and if they want to improve Asian relations, the Japanese government should publicly apologize for the war, if not the emperor himself. Germany apologized, and no one has brought it up since.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:52 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    "Germany apologized, and no one has brought it up since."

    THIS. THIS EXACTLY.

    Japan needs to learn from Germany. If you accept your faults and own up to your history, people aren't going to keep throwing it at you.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:26 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    The problem here isn't just that Japan needs to make a meaningful apology. They need to rid itself of the textbooks that completely overlook their war crimes and portrays the Japanese as heroes of "liberation". You think Germany would ever get away of doing the same?

    Another is to do away with Hirohito in the shrine. This is equivelant of Germany glorifying Hitler in a grave for "heroes".

    But I don't see that ever happening. The Japanese in general are closet Right Wingers. It all means nothing if the majority of Japanese still acts so nonchalant about it's past and continues to blame all problems on foreigners generally. How many times can they keep using "Bet he/it/they is or are Korean". Past is in the past, we all know. But forgetting the past and treating it like it was nothing only bring it's repeat in the future.

    Avatar of shinryou
    Comment by shinryou
    22:19 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    It might not be brought up on an international political level, but is very well brought up on a personal level.

    And to be honest, it is not like everyone in Germany thinks that the post-war governments handled everything properly. Even today some people on the right wing despise Adenauer for going down on his knees in the Warsaw ghetto in 1970 (he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his reconciliatory politics regarding the victims of Germany in Easter Europe in 1971, btw).

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:43 19/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    But Adenauer also sold shitloads of weapons to Franco, aiding him in his own little dictatorship only because franco played the "Or else Socialists take over Europe!" card! :D

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:24 21/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Germany was forced to apologize and take full responsibility at the end of the war because it was part of dismantling the 'German identity', an important part to deprogramming the Nazi out of the hun.

    The Americans were less interested in forcing Japan to apologize because with surrender they had the potential to be a strategic ally against the Soviets and Mao.

    Therefore, they turned a blind eye to Japan denying the Rape of Nanking, and excusing the savage conquests of the 1930s as entering into alliances with willing partners

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:00 17/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.6)

    "and no one has brought it up since"

    I loled hard at that statement. thanks.

    Avatar of cats2
    Comment by cats2
    03:18 19/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.4)

    Denial exists everywhere I guess. When they absolutely don't want to admit wrongness or defeat on any level STILL.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:30 20/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    In all fairness, the Chinese probably deserved it. They invaded and cannibalized Formosa (renamed to Taiwan) and cannibalized it's indigenous population. There are historical accounts of open markets trading in human flesh as recently as around 1900.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:36 17/08/2011 # ! Drivel (-0.7)

    Anyone stupid enough to say that the nuking were deserved needs to pull their head out of their ass. The nukes were weapons of mass destruction used to slaughter CIVILIANS who had absolutely no control over the military. Early 20th century Japanese civilians had only one "right" - to do what their feudal lords tell them or die.
    Such ignorant tribalism from both sides is sickening.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:56 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Military men who aren't actively in a war and who only seek to defend their country don't deserve a surprise attack that drags an entire country into a world war, which leads to more people getting killed and families losing loved ones.

    To say that the people in the US military weren't innocent as well in this scenario is faulty. They are people too.

    And while any deaths are tragic, if you look at this strategically, the bombs were the best answer to a quick end to this war. If a ground invasion had occurred there would be very few Japanese people around to even talk about this. And keep in mind this bomb was also in response to Japan slaughtering and raping people throughout all of Asia.

    So the nuke wasn't necessarily deserved, and it wasn't necessarily right, but it wasn't wrong either.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:57 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Actually the number of bomb victims are much less than the civilian causalities the Japan army inflicted on other nations.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:08 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    "Typical illiterate American."

    Yes, because typing out facts makes one illiterate. I think you need to get a dictionary to figure out what that word means.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:12 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Are you seriously suggesting that weapons of mass destruction were the best possible solution? The bombs were dropped on civilian population and are no less of a genocide than the Nazi death chambers. The US could have bombed military installations, it could have destroyed some huge natural rock and it could have dropped it on a large concentration of Japanese warships. But no, they had to kill a bunch of innocent families whose only crime is that they were powerless against their government.

    The US didn't even try to reach a reasonable diplomatic solution. The Japanese leaders were not idiots, they were well aware they cannot win a war against the entire allied force and USSR. Hell, at this point, Japan was preparing to make their last stand and had absolutely no aspirations to win the war.
    A lot of lives could have been said if the US military didn't want to flex their muscles and win a total capitulation instead of a peace treaty. The Japanese may have been too proud to surrender, but I'm sure they would have been more than happy to end the war on equal terms. That, or they were too royally stupid to command a band of boyscouts, let alone an army. We would never know, because the allies never fucking tried.

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:09 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Don't forget the geopolitical reasons why the Bomb was used.

    The war in Europe was over already (and the Bomb had originally been made to deal with Nazi Germany who was also working on one), and a conflict with the USSR was looming over the horizon already.

    Something was needed to help keep things from escalating further in that regard.

    Toss in the other arguments you made and there were few reasons not to use it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:27 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    @Anon of 03:12 19/08/2011

    The bomb was considered the best solution at the time. My own personal opinion in that regard is irrelevant. I'm merely conveying the historical background to the decision.

    Psych evaluations of the then Japanese honcho's made it clear, that just blowing up a rock wouldn't suffice.

    Blowing up the ships as you mentioned wasn't tactically feasible.

    Hence the decision to hit two cities instead.
    (They predicted that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima would lead to the Hardliners to try and downplay the event, which they did, hence why Nagasaki got hit as well.)

    This and the guarantee that the Emperor would not be held accountable or punished, was deemed enough material to get a total capitulation.

    A negotiated peace treaty wasn't possible, there would've been too much political backwash in the States as well considering Pearl Harbour.

    (Plus there was the issue of that the civvie politicians may have wanted to negotiate, but the military hardliners preferred fighting to the death, and without their approval there could be no negotiations, due to a quirk of Japanese law at the time. Also note the 3 coup attempts after the Bombs were dropped and the decision to surrender had been made.)

    The orders for Civvies to kill themselves didn't help matters either. See the incidents at Saipan and Okinawa. Also the lawsuit against Kenzaburo Oe in 2007/2008 with regards to the Suicide Order in Okinawa, with the verdict coming in 2008, and the court in Osaka ruling in his favour.

    Hindsight is 20/20, but purely considering the relevant factors at the time, this was the "best" option available to them.

    Especially in light that Truman had inherited the entire project. He hadn't been informed as the VP, only the President and a few select military bigwigs had knowledge of it (not counting the staff/guards working on the project).

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:06 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Are you serious?
    it wasn't wrong either. <---- Do you know what radiation is? Typical illiterate American.
    Doesn't even know what he's talking about.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:15 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    @3:12
    You have to keep in mind that the internet wasn't around back then. Messages didn't reach the other side of the world at lightning speed the way they do now, particularly during a stressful war situation.

    We NOW know way after the fact what was going on for both sides and who had planned to do what. But you have to understand that back then, when you are in the middle of a war, you can't waste time figuring out what the other side is trying to do.

    All the US knew was that they got no direct communication that the Japanese were going to end the war and stop killing and raping civilians or attacking other countries. You can go on all you want about what Japan planned to do, but frankly, it's foolish to even think about it that way. Japan didn't make it clear that they planned to give up, and the US had no reason to believe that they would since Japan wasn't responding to warnings or questions about their stance. The allies made several attempts to get through to Japan receiving pretty much nothing but a middle finger in response.

    So the response to end the war was to continue attacking Japan, who was the aggressor. And then Japan finally did was they should have done in the first place: Make a clear declaration that they were surrendering.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:20 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    "The war in Europe was over already (and the Bomb had originally been made to deal with Nazi Germany who was also working on one),"

    Exactly. And the reason the war was over was because America joined in and dealt with Germany BEFORE going to deal with Japan.

    Japan dragged the yanks into the war, and then when they were already in they dealt with Hilter before going to Japan.

    In the time between the Pearl Harbor bombing and the Allied forces taking down the Nazi's, Japan had more than enough time to agree to a peaceful surrender. And believe me, the allies were trying.

    Japan did not surrender, so the bomb was used on them as a last resort.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:07 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    @21:06
    The life of dangerous radiation in that area wasn't that long. Due to the nature of the bomb (and the fact that it is actually detonated in the air) the fallout was very short-lived. This should be apparent from the fact that people are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now. There are other examples of radiation (Chernobyl for example) in which the radiation will continue to be a problem for a long time to come.

    So bringing up radiation doesn't really help make a valid point. A ground invasion still would have killed millions more Japanese.

    Avatar of erochichi
    Comment by erochichi
    07:18 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    There is some sources that say nukes were not absolutely necessary, they believe Japan had already prepared to surrend in short time thereafter anyway.
    Some also say USA was in hurry to test nukes against some cities, to see what destruction they would cause in real situation.
    I can`t say this is true, but after thinking for awhile it doesn`t feel entirely impossible.

    Comment by Char
    12:20 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    The bombs were horrific but it was deemed better then the alternatives.

    An Allied invasion of Japan would have resulted in as many as 10 million casualties and a million allied casualties.

    The people who made the decision also were very much aware of the use of biological and chemical weapons in China.
    These weapons were every bit as bad as the atomic bombs maybe in some ways worse.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:13 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Japan had and used weapons of mass destruction during WWII.

    Their germ weapons where every bit as deadly as the atomic bombs the US used.
    The infamous unit 731 was where they were developed.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    The japanese also had their own nuclear weapons program as well.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:12 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    A negotiated peace treaty wasn't possible, there would've been too much political backwash in the States as well considering Pearl Harbour.

    Nice to know the US had their priorities straight. Kill the other fuckers to win the election.
    US high command was secretly helping the Chinese way back in 1940 and they were already planning to invade Japan at that time. The preemptive attack on PH was far from unprovoked.

    The orders for Civvies to kill themselves didn't help matters either.

    Which brings us to the point that invading a fanatic island nation probably wasn't the best plan to begin with.
    You always end up coming back to this false dilemma where the US had to invade or nuke. They had the option to stop shooting and open diplomatic channels. The Japanese military had it's teeth pulled out by the middle of 1945, they had no means to target US assets on a meaningful scale anymore.

    Hindsight is 20/20, but purely considering the relevant factors at the time, this was the "best" option available to them.

    Strategically? Yes. The Japanese military would cease to be a military threat for as long as the US would occupy the mainland. If you can justify the casualties and sleep soundly with the results, then nothing I say would convince you.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:06 07/01/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    To quite many here who're white-washing US actions in WW2:

    There's the little spicy bit that US intelligence had significant evidence that Japan was probably getting ready to offer surrender. Only unconditional surrender wasn't really expected right away. Just negotiating a 'lesser' surrender would have been... too much work or something?

    But even if they had not known that, it wouldn't really matter. Nuking of two cities full of civilians is a despicable crime against humanity, and on top of that such an atrocity that it stands out with a handful the very worst atrocities in WW2, even in spite that war having so many atrocities.
    All claims about some alleged military need are just hollow and could be similarly given for just about any atrocity ever, in the past during that war, or in the future. Really, the next person -even on your side- who attempts or orders something like it should be tried for crimes against humanity immediately.

    Now, aside from that really ugly bit, the old "the USA won the war in Europe" myth is not really that true either. The USA surely was involved and contributing to the victory, and it can be said that it probably saved the people of the UK -a nice achievement too. But really, for the largest part, the Soviet Union did the bleeding and winning. The western front during the US invasion

    As a closing side-note, guess who looted most of Germany's technology after the war and refused to share much of it with their eastern "allies" in particular, ending up as probably one of the very few nations that maybe had a net benefit from the war in Europe?

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:36 20/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    @Anon of 18:12 19/08/2011

    *Nice to know the US had their priorities straight. Kill the other fuckers to win the election. US high command was secretly helping the Chinese way back in 1940 and they were already planning to invade Japan at that time. The preemptive attack on PH was far from unprovoked.*

    Not so much election as a Civil uprising.
    Keep in mind the political situation back then, decent percentage of the US population didn't like FDR at the time, they considered him a Socialist.

    And Truman had only inherited the whole mess after FDR's death as the VP, so he had no real standing with which to make such a political gamble and not have things blow up in his face.

    (Also FDR was the only one with the political capital in general to pull it off. If he deemed it undoable and not even worth the attempt, then that says a lot. Considering some of the other longshots he was willing to pull off)

    As for the China help, you're talking about the Flying Tigers who were essentially a PMC or mercs, as opposed to an official US detachment. There's a legal difference here.

    In addition, there was the small issue that the KMT were allies of the US, hence the advisory role the US played in the Second Sino-Japanese war. This was no different really from China/USSR providing material support to the NVA/VC during the Vietnam War. Also note the economic help given to China during the Second Sino-Japanese war by Germany. (Yes, Japan's allies helped fund the Chinese war effort till about 1941, with the most intense help being from 1933 to 1937.)

    As for the Invasion of Japan pre-WW2, got some sources for that? Can't find any reference beyond Operation Downfall myself.

    *Which brings us to the point that invading a fanatic island nation probably wasn't the best plan to begin with.
    You always end up coming back to this false dilemma where the US had to invade or nuke. They had the option to stop shooting and open diplomatic channels. The Japanese military had it's teeth pulled out by the middle of 1945, they had no means to target US assets on a meaningful scale anymore.*

    And you keep on neglecting the fact, that the civvies weren't in control of the Japanese government. Due to Japanese law the entire cabinet had to be in agreement, before something could be done. If the relevant military minister resigned, than no decision could be made.

    And it was the military block with all its rivalries which was calling all the shots. And had been doing so since the '30s, best shown by the rewritten mperial Defense Policy of 1936.

    Just leaving them be, would simply have lead to a similar situation as with WW1/Versailled/WW2 with regards to Japan.

    *Strategically? Yes. The Japanese military would cease to be a military threat for as long as the US would occupy the mainland. If you can justify the casualties and sleep soundly with the results, then nothing I say would convince you.*

    And one if one from a moral pov rejects the Bombing, then no matter what anyone else says, would convince you otherwise either.

    On a personal level, I find the targeting of the cities deplorable, as I do not approve of the purposeful targeting of civilians at all, by either side.

    Having said that, personal feelings and historical overview or even strategic necessity are completely different things.

    I can see why they thought it the "best" solution. And they may be right, but I still find it unfortunate that it had to go that far. Still, if I had been in their shoes, weighing all the factors, I probably would've come to the same conclusion as well.

    Look at it from a medical pov, you've got a patient infected with gangrene. Do you amputate? Or do you just pump them full of antibiotics?

    Amputating is regrettable and deplorable, but if it saves the patient's life, what else is there to do.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:16 18/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.6)

    Hey guess who else was killing civillians even though they had no stance in the military? Japan.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:16 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    So, does this make it ok for jews to exterminate German people? Just because your enemy is a psychopath doesn't make it alright for you to be such. The Japanese military is responsible for their crimes, but that is not an excuse for the US.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:14 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    People also forget that Japan was heavily indoctrinated with nationalism and outrages propaganda (even more so then now). Think how strongly the Japanese defended pointless islands in the pacific, now apply that to their homeland! Every man, women, and child would be handed a gun or at the very least a grenade to defend to the last or die with the enemy. Yes the bombs were the better option. Thousands of live were saved by not invading the mainland.

    p.s. I am an American, deal with it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:22 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    There is a big difference between Jews killing Germans to compete in insanity, and the allies trying to stop Japan from raping, slaughtering, and conquering other nations.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:38 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    There is a big difference between Jews killing Germans to compete in insanity, and the allies trying to stop Japan from raping, slaughtering, and conquering other nations.

    The US were trying to prevent Japan from becoming a huge military presence in Asia. Everything else is an unintended side effect.
    When the nukes went out, Japan was not in position of invading anything. If they were really trying to stop Japan, they already had.

    People also forget that Japan was heavily indoctrinated with nationalism and outrages propaganda (even more so then now).

    And so was the US. You can easily dig up US pro war propaganda from that time.

    Think how strongly the Japanese defended pointless islands in the pacific, now apply that to their homeland!

    They were defending important strategic locations. Islands are useful resupply and maintenance points for a navy. An army is worth nothing without it's supply lines.

    Every man, women, and child would be handed a gun or at the very least a grenade to defend to the last or die with the enemy.

    The Japanese had a strong, if twisted sense of honor at the time. Making women and children fight would be an intolerable embarrassment to them.

    Thousands of live were saved by not invading the mainland.

    They didn't really have to do that either way. The US held all the cards, they could have ended the war in more than one ways. The point of the bombs was to end the war in a capitulation, not just end the war.

    Avatar of seikosan
    Comment by seikosan
    02:44 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    20th century + feudal lords LOL hahahahaha
    ah, u make me raff

    Avatar of erochichi
    Comment by erochichi
    07:24 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    The governing system of Japan was quite feudal up to 1945. Some democratic development was beginning in 1920s, but militarists soon stifled that.
    Your idea of feudalism seem different from most historians. It was a governing, ruling system, not any certain period of time.
    Many muslim countries DO still live in feudalism.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:46 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    U RAFF U ROSE!

    Avatar of erochichi
    Comment by erochichi
    05:35 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Anon 16:06 is right, most civilians were victims, as always, on any side. Japan was led by aggressive minority, most people had nothing to do but obey.
    Drivel notion is by no means deserved for that anon, you can give a million minus for me for this, but i am still right.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:28 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Most of the US military at Pearl Harbor were also victims. I don't see why people don't understand this.

    Just because you join the military it doesn't make you less human. People join the military to train to defend their country. But for some reason, because these men and women decided to join the military to save and defend others, people think it's okay to say they deserved to be killed or bombed more than civilians. IT'S NOT OKAY. They are still human beings.

    And another thing people don't seem to understand is that the soldiers in Pearl Harbor were not at war. Just because you are trained to do something doesn't mean you deserved to be painted with a target for your entire life. The men and women at that base were innocent. They hadn't done anything to Japan. So why do people act as though it was okay to attack them, and somehow less okay to attack civilians? It's pretty disgusting.

    So again, I don't understand why people go on and on about those civilians as though it was wrong to kill them, but okay to bomb a military base with human beings.

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:10 17/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    If they didn't want to be nuked they shouldn't have started the war.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:52 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    The US were bombing Japan under Chinese colors as early as 1940. They were also preparing for a mainland invasion.
    Japan may have started the war, but the US gave them a casus beli on it.

    Exactly. It's pretty stupid to attack the US's morality while dragging most of the world into a war with you.

    No it's not. One warcrime does not excuse the other.

    Also, the US teaches all of this in their history.

    The US education system is known to be rather... unreliable.

    What people are pissed about here is the fact that Japan denies it's faults in its history while talking about the morality of other countries.

    The US tries very heavily to justify their own warcrimes themselves. Both sides made a lot of mistakes they don't want to admit. And what's even more stupid is that everyone keeps arguing over it instead of owning up to the faults of their grandparents and leaving it all behind.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:30 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Exactly. It's pretty stupid to attack the US's morality while dragging most of the world into a war with you.

    Also, the US teaches all of this in their history. What people are pissed about here is the fact that Japan denies it's faults in its history while talking about the morality of other countries.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:31 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Personally I found it hilarious, epic troll!

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:03 17/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.9)

    The Japanese just prefer to ignore everything that doesn't appeal to them. Of course, when China comes knock-knock-knocking on their door, they'll turn to America and Korea as the closest war powers.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:46 17/08/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    I'm actually betting it's North Korea that will "accidentally" manage to blow up half of Japan.

    Avatar of Firetribe
    Comment by Firetribe
    00:21 18/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.6)

    Whoever believes China and North Korea have any intention of attacking Japan is eating the doublethink.

    Everyone knows that China is Japan's major trading partner, heck all the Japanese electronics are manufactured in, you guessed it, China. Japan is just as much tied to China as the US. No conflict will happen between them. As for North Korea doesn't even have a working Nuclear plant and no one is sure if it's for a bomb.

    The conflict between them is propaganda driven by politics to distract people from the problems at home - which people should be concentrating on.

    Avatar of MK 7 DUDE
    Comment by MK 7 DUDE
    19:27 17/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.5)

    As an ASIAN, I do not hate CURRENT JAPANESE for their ancestor's sin.
    Srsly, 2 atom bombs and shits are enough atonements(Except that ISHITHARA). Well, some Chinese and Korean government people and some brainless idiots are assholes....
    Overall people are nice in person.That includes Sankaku netizons.

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:11 17/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.8)

    The current Japanese politicians are contributing many problems BOTH against Japanese and non-Japanese alike.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:10 17/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    You have to see it in such a way that, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not atonement, they were simply acts of aggression.If you were to put it in a bad manner, it would be called tit for tat, or worse, revenge.Atonement, in my views, should never cause more sufferings to the people.Atonement should be actions aimed to makeup for mistakes, to improve the condition of the victims.

    Now, Japan's past atrocities are pretty clear to the rest of the world.For us, hating them is pointless, as it was all in the past.For them, it is important to accept these hard facts and move on.As people say, to acknowledge and learn from the mistakes are the only paths to improvement.I am from Singapore, and incase you do not know what the Japanese did here in the past, you can go wiki it.We hid in drains so flooded that you could go diving in them to avoid the Japanese soldiers, so I do understand the sufferings due to war.However, I know how to get my thoughts straight and not hate those who do not truly deserve it.

    Avatar of George
    Comment by George
    03:52 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    The projected loss of lives of an American invasion of Japanese mainland would be on the upside of 40 times as much as victims of the nuclear bombs, majority Japanese. That's not including the war of attrition that would be prolonged in China.

    The dropping of the bombs were neither acts of aggression nor revenge, but rather acts of necessary evil that saved lives, including Japanese ones.

    Ishihara and his supporters already want to acquire nuclear weapons and create the conditions where such acts of necessary evil may again occur.

    This has nothing to do with "hating" Japanese people as a whole, but rather make sure they remember their history, so that people like Ishihara don't lead them to repeat it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:40 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Don't even talk about the bombings as atonement, or worse. It was war, shit happens. The only other option to the bombs was invasion, which would have been worse in terms of loss of life on both sides.

    Operation Downfall; look it up.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:01 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Karma's a bitch and Japan felt it first hand. What's done is done and there's nothing we can do about it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:47 17/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    In a way, the Japanese occupation led to one singular affirmative action, the withdrawal of western powers in Asia. Some of us might still be under British, Dutch or Spanish rule etc otherwise.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:13 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    And amusingly enough I can mention at least one nation that was better off under its colonial masters than it is now, with all the corruption, incompetence and inefficiency.

    :P

    Avatar of George
    Comment by George
    04:01 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    The idea that Japan somehow freed Asia from colonialism, and did them a favor by invading, is BS. Learn your history.

    Philippines freed itself from America in a bloody independence war half a century before ww2. Japan invaded an independent country.

    China had already freed itself from fractured European proxy-colonialism decades before WW2 in nationalist revolution. Japan saw an opportunity to pillage a newly weakened country, and took it.

    South eastern Asian countries were already simmering with revolt by WW2. If anything, Japanese invasion delayed that progress.

    The delusional alternative history where Japanese were liberators only existed in Ishihara's head.

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:38 17/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    People of many Asian - Pacific countries did and would fight for their own independence regardless of whether Japan invaded or not. Thus I can't agree with your opinion.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:19 17/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yes, but there hasn't been a single armed revolution that wasn't aided by a stronger country. One thing is fighting for independence, another completely different is actually achieving it

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:12 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Uhm, are you missing something? Like, entire goddamn continent of Africa?

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:26 17/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    China isn't going anywhere unless they are looking to stir up another world war.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:41 19/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    China's too busy trying to keep their currency low and labor cheap to stir up any trouble. With 'first' world countries the wars are all in the global economy, Export versus import and who owes who. *shrug*

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:44 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    I think China just wants to get Taiwan back, lol

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:09 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Japan is forced to rely on the United States due at least in some small part to the Japanese constitution and the treatise between the two countries which prevents Japan from having an effective defense.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Ah, same goes for americans. Over 3 million dead iraqis now. Roughly about as many jews as Hitler killed, confirmedly.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:30 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    Nice troll, insurgents are the ones that killed the vast majority of civilians there.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:02 18/08/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    My god you're an idiot.

    Avatar of Koyoto_Shadow
    Comment by Koyoto_Shadow
    03:56 18/08/2011 # ! Good (+0.4)

    First off, the low end estimate of the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust stands around 6 million, and the low-end estimate of non-jews killed during the Holocaust stands at about 5 million (11 million people total), though estimates range as high as 17 million of the combined group were systematically murdered during the Holocaust.

    The western powers on the whole with the exception of the Axis powers before and since those wars have always put a high value on human life, just look at the pow camps run by the allies for a good, clear comparison.

    Just like many dictatorships today, the Axis powers and their modern-day successors put no value to human life, and kill people that oppose their views as if they were swine or cattle.

    This isn't merely done with bullets, like so many despots in the Middle-East, Asia, and Africa. Sometimes whipping people into a frenzy just to silence opposition to radical views, creating an 'other' for the people to hate, to revile, to turn their energy against...in the end, it can have a just as horrible, just as vile, just as cruel an impact.

    Hitler painted Jews and his 'undesirables' as the ones to blame for all the people's problems, and taught them to lash out at them, and destroy them to realize his vision. So, I ask of you, who are you trying to paint as the villain? Who are you trying rile up, and for what end? Does that really help anyone, or does it just hurt everyone?








    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments