Talk:List of war apology statements issued by Japan/Archive 1

Contents

Just a list of statements with citations, mostly from primary sources. Criticisms of them should have an independent section if neccesary (or Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes should suffice). Hermeneus

Recent apology

Japanese PM apologises over war - BBC - April 21, 2005

--69.214.232.105 07:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, look at this. This is the first time that China has acknowledged a Japanese apology (to my knowledge). Bbhtryoink 23:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Retraction

The following paragraph was removed from the main article due to user disagreements:

"The following is an exhaustive list of apologies delivered to China and Korea by individual Japanese officials since 1972, which diplomatically stated that Japan was either keenly or deeply aware, conscious, remorseful or regretful of the unfortunate acts, tragedy or suffering during a certain period or in the past. However, due to the sensitive nature of the apologies in Japan, the officials avoided connecting their apologies directly to Japan's World War II actions. Japan has yet to issue an official apology that, unequivocally and specifically, directs at World War II and its WWII atrocities." The statement was replaced with a POV check box. - ktchong

There is nothing against NPOV about the article since it's just a list of actual statements made by Japanese politicians. It makes no judgement as to whether Japan has apologized properly for its war crimes or not. What's against NPOV is the above comment that you tried to add on top earlier. Hermeneus 23:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To (and From) ktchong

• The Japanese government has issued at least three official apology statements that expressly use the expression "apology," viz. Japan-Republic of Korea Joint Declaration, Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration, and the speech "On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end" by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama.

Please refer readers to a sentence or sentences that clearly and specifically connect an apology directly to World War II. There have been many apologies from Japan, but none of the apologies are definitively linked to World War II. A statement that clearly says "(The Government of) Japan expresses its apology and remorse for the wartime acts during the period of World War II" would have been, indeed, an indisputable apology--specific and unequivocal--for Japan's World War II acts. None of the apologies has ever specified a clearly dated event or time period. The apologies are general and vague in terms of intended time period, i.e., the phrases "during a certain period" and "in the past" are frequently used in the apologies. - ktchong

• The first two apology statements mentioned above are official diplomatic ducuments. The last one is a statement based on a Cabinet Decision (閣議決定), signed by the Emperor, and has been carried forth by successive administrations. In other words they are as official as they could get:

Press Conference on: Visit of Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto to the People's Republic of China. 09/06/1997. [1] "In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, the Government of Japan expressed its resolution through the statement by the Prime Minister, which states that during a certain period in the past, Japan's conduct caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, including China, and the Prime Minister expressed his feeling of deep remorse and stated his heartfelt apology, while giving his word to make efforts for peace. I myself was one of the ministers who was involved in drafting this statement. I would like to repeat that this is the official position of the Government of Japan. During the summit meeting that I had during my visit to China, I have made this point very clear in a frank manner to the Chinese side. Premier Li Peng said that he concurs completely with my remarks."

Again, the vagueness is the phrase "during a certain period in the past," which either could or could not be World War II. - ktchong

Address by Minister for Foreign Affairs Yohei Kono During His Visit to the People's Republic of China. 08/30/2000. [2] ``I believe that Japan's perception of past history was clearly set out in the Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued, following a Cabinet Decision, on the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. As a member of the Cabinet, I participated in the drafting of that Statement. The spirit contained therein has been carried forth by successive administrations and is now the common view of the large number of Japanese people.

• Japanese politicians do "[connect] their apologies directly to Japan's World War II actions" in many statements. Two of the earliest statements stated that "the Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war" and that " The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China." Hermeneus 20:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is an interesting observation: with a plethora of apologies from Japan, not a single one has specifically or clearly put the words "apology" and "World War II" (or a related term like "the Pacific War" or "the Sino-Japanese War") in the same sentence. All statements have stopped short of clarifying "this is an apology for World War II." The repeated omissions have, unfortunately, continued to raise distrust and contentions between Japan and its neighboring Asian nations. - ktchong

It's a trivial observation. FYI Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula (日韓併合) in 1910, and started a war with China (Sino-Japanese War, 日中戦争) in 1937. "World War II" includes European theatre and so is not spesific enough to be used in apology statements to Asian nations. "Pacific War" is an English term used primarily in the U.S. and the rest of English speaking country. In eitehr way the name of war to be used in apology statements has never been such a big issue as you seem to believe. Hermeneus 21:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, every formal and sincere apology should clearly note what particular incident (or period or receipient) it is intended for, especially when the apology is meant to settle a bitter divisive issue. It should strive to be as clear as possible so it will not be open to different, debatable intepretions. - ktchong

Japan's invasion of Asia didn't start all of a sudden in 1939 or whatever date of the outbreak of WW2. For one, Japan annexed Korea in 1910, which was 4 years earlier than First World War. No single name of war could encompass the entire invasion of the Imperial Japan in the early 20th century. Nor are most apology statements lengthy enough to include every detail of the damage that Japan inflicted on Asian nations. Also, you don't necessarily use in diplomatic documents those neat historical terms that you learn from school textbooks. Hermeneus 22:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The grievance of Chinese and Koreans have always been largely if not entirely directed at Japan's World War II war crimes. Neither Chinese nor Koreans have shown particularly interest in the wars or aggressions other than World War II and the immediate events right before and after that war. A direct and straightfoward apology, clearly noting that it is for World War II invasions, instead of a general and vague one, would have avoided a lot of disagreements and debatable interpretions.

In fact, there has never been a truly official apology. While many individual Japan's government officials including Prime Ministers have offered numerous personal and official apologies since the early 1970s, the Diet of Japan and the general population continue to overwhelmingly oppose to the issuing of an official apology. In 1995, Japan's Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi proposed a national apology but failed to obtain support in the Diet by a margin of almost 2 to 1. Only 26% of the Diet members supported Murayama's resolution and 47% were against it. Additionally, the then Education Minister organized a petition against Murayama's apology and collected 4.5 million signatures. (Unfortunately, these crucial details are omitted in the main article of the list of war apologies.)

You need to cite references here - as a foreigner to both Japan and China, I dont believe this for a second. I've lived in both countries, and the sentiment from Japan regarding what they did back then is one of deep embarrassment, and this, coupled with the asian aversion to embarrassment, means it hardly ever gets spoken about. This does not however mean that there is no regret for what they did - they changed to a pacifist constitution, renounced war and have followed along that path ever since. That to me counts as contrition - Japan is known globally as a deeply pacifist country now, and it is still fresh in our minds what happened 75 years ago - no one will let them forget that. Same with Germany. As an aside - if you wish to tackle me over Japans increasingly muscular military - they are not the first movers here. China has been increasing miliatry expenditure in double digit percentages for some years, and most asian nations are now reacting to this. Japan is among them. youcangetholdofjules — Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Therefore, unlike Germany or Italy, where there is overwhelming national concensus on recognizing the wrongs of WWII, Japan's government and population have not conciliated with Japan's WWII wartime acts. As indicated by the Diet's objection and the petition to an apology, the government and population are overwhelmingly against an apology (and probably even admitting wrongdoings) and supportive of the conservative, pro-nationalist stance in regards to WWII war crimes.

Most importantly, it is the widespread and rising conservative, nationalist sentiment in Japan that is most deeply troubling. That is exactly that same kind of sentiment that had led to Japan's invasion of Korea, China and other Pacific Asian nations in World War II. - ktchong Apr 11, 2005.

• Neither Chinese nor Koreans use the term "World War II" when they talk about the damage that they suffered during the war in Asia. They don't argue the issue in English using concepts that are familiar to Americans or Europeans.

The response is particularly evasive and rhetorical. It is also untrue.

There is nothing fuzzy about China want from Japan: an official apology specifically and unequivocally issued for World War II, with that event (i.e., "World War II") and time period clearly noted. China, at least, have clearly stated its intention through its government, public figures, and private organizations, and I am giving you the evidences now:

BBC: "Beijing has made it clear that it expects an unequivocal expression of remorse from Tokyo for its occupation of Manchuria in the 1930s and atrocities committed by its soldiers during World War II." [3]

1930s. World War II. Clear. Specific.

"During Chinese President Jiang's visit to Japan recently, he demanded for a written apology from Japan about Japan's invasion of World War II, but he failed to obtain a full apology." [Blocked Link]

World War II. Clear. Specific.

So you were are flatly wrong when you asserted that, in your words, 'neither Chinese nor Koreans use the term "World War II" when they talk about the damage that they suffered during the war in Asia.' And I have just given you the specific evidences that show you are flatly wrong. There are other cases and evidences, but I am not going to provide an exhaustive list of them.

• You are flatly wrong if you believe that Koreans think their suffering started with "World War II" and not the colonial rule. Same is true for the Chinese.

I am flatly wrong? Excuse me. Since you are Japanese, and I am the Chinese, I think I know the Chinese point-of-view much better then you do. Please do not make assumptions about how Chinese think or feel, and then proclaim it to be "true for the Chinese". For me as a Chinese, it is obvious that you do not know what Chinese think. And I doubt you know anything about what Koreans think as well.

Well he/she obviously does. Korea's complaint is about the colonial rule which started in 1910, not World War 2. It's a simple fact, which I am surprised is even being debated. Phonemonkey 26 April 2006

• None of the listed statements are expressed by politicians as private citizens. They are expressed by the politicians in their official capacity as the representative of the will of the Japanese people, based on certain official procedures such as Cabinet Decision and diplomatic agreement. Cabinet Decisions require unanimous approval from the cabinet members. Diplomatic agreements require majority approval from the Diet just like laws and resolutions.

That is contradictory to the sources I had read. The final revision of the so-called "No War Resolution", like so many other "apology" resolution before it, did not include an actual official apology. See below.

• Murayama's proposed resolution of 1995 was later revised and issued from the Diet eventually. [4] In either way, this is only one of many apology statements issued by Japan. Some apology statements use better expressions than others.

Murayama's official statement is a personal apology. There are differences between an official statement made by the Prime Minister, and an official apology issued by Japan as a nation. That source you give is a speech by Murayama, and the "No War Resolution" of Murayama (i.e., the resolution for an official apology) was was rejected by the majority of the Diet of Japan by 2 to 1.[5]

The final revision you speak of was "drastically watered down by the prime minister's conservative coalition partners." "The resolution as passed contains several conspicuous features. Japanese colonialism and aggression is placed in the larger context of "modern" colonialism and aggression by other powers (implicitly "the West"). The word "apology" (shazai or owabi) is conspicuously absent from the final statement. And the "deep remorse" (fukai hansei) expressed for the suffering Imperial Japan caused other peoples is explicitly identified as referring primarily to Japan's Asian neighbors."[6] Unfortunately, that so-called "apology" statement represents a reflection and pattern for all other "apology" statements that have been issued by Japan.

• What official apology statements have Germany and Italy issued, to whom, and for what? Exactly in what sense are they "official"? Are they expressed as a resolution, cabinet decision, or expressed in diplomatic agreements, or what? Hermeneus 12:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be responded with sources. (Huh? You don't know Germany and Italy have issued former apology for World War II?! Wow. I hope you were not just being evasive and rhetoric. Anyway, I will be back with the sources.)

As I have said, I strongly feel that the responses I have been receiving is becoming increasing evasive and rhetorical. Unfortunately, I have to attend to other businesses, so I will not be able to commit to this circuitous rhetorics on a full-time (or even part-time) basis. However, there is no doubt that the neutrality of the article is in dispute. (Well, I certainly dispute it.) So I think it is fair for me to insert a "Point-of-View Check" note in the main article, which is a standard policy for a Wikipedian to mark an article in dispute for neutrality. This has been my purpose from the beginning, to inform other readers that the article is possibly biased. I have accomplished my purpose, so I move on. - ktchong

---

• ktchong: Murayama's official statement is a personal apology.

Incorrect. There were Murayama danwa (村山談話) and No War Resolution (不戦決議). The statement that you consider "personal apology" is Murayama danwa.

Murayama danwa was based on Cabinet Decision (閣議決定), which requires unanimous approval from the Cabinet members. In other words it's hardly a "personal apology." Murayama danwa expresses apology in a straightforward manner, using the very word "apology" among others. It is also the official view of the Japanese government that has been carried forth by successive administrations as evidenced by the quoted statements of Japanese politicians above. Murayama cabinet was a coalition of 3 parties, the conservative LDP, Japan Socialist party, and Shinto Sakigake. LDP had 12 members in the cabinet, Socialist 5 including the prime minister, and Sakigake 5.

No War Resolution was a Diet Resolution (国会決議) whose original draft also was submitted by Murayama. Diet Resolutions require majority approval from the Diet members (i.e. parliamentary members). No War Resolution used rather roundabout expressions of "apology" and so is not one of the better statements that the Japanese government has issued so far. Nonetheless it is a statement that acknowledges that through "colonial rule and acts of aggression" Japan inflicted "pain and suffering upon the peoples of other countries, especially in Asia" and expresses "a sense of deep remorse." It should also be noted that the resolution doesn't glorify the war or the Imperial Japan in any way and so is not inconsistent with other official statements made by the Japanese government.

• ktchong: World War II.

Neither government of the PRC nor the ROK nor the DPRK has pressed such a ridiculous complaint on the lack of the word "World War II" in apology statements. What the Koreans are demanding apology for is the 36 years of the colonial rule, which is referred to either as "the Period of Japanese Imperial Rule" (Ilje Sidae in Korean, 日帝强占期) or "Period of Imperial Japanese forcible occupation" (Ilje Gangjeomgi in Korean, 日帝時代). What the Chinese are demanding apology for is the invasion of their land in Sino-Japanese war, which is known as the Chinese People's Anti-Japanese War of Resistance (中国人民抗日战争) or War of Resistance (抗战) in Chinese language. They don't use the term "World War II" because they are not demanding apology for the damage that Japan has caused on the Americans or the Dutch or anyone else than themselves.

As for the two articles on Jiang's visit to Japan in 1995 that you mentioned, "World War II" is merely a word that the authors of those articles added for the purpose of clarification for English-speaking readers. That's not the expression that the Chinese government used. In either way, what Jiang demanded was (1) a more clearly worded, (2) written apology that is (3) specifically addressed to China like the apology in Japan-S.Korea Joint Declaration that was offered earlier in the same year. [7] [8] As a matter of fact Japan-S.Korea Joint Declaration expressed apology for the 1910-45 colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula, not "World War II." Nobody but yourself is complaining about the lack of the word "World War II."

Zhu Rongji also made a similar criticism on Japan's apology during his visit to Japan in 2000:

The Japan Times: Oct. 15, 2000: Zhu held that an official statement in 1995 by then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, in which Japan expressed "deep remorse and heartfelt apology," does not qualify as an apology to the Chinese people as it was directed in general terms to Asian people. "Japan has never apologized to the Chinese people in any of the official documents," he said.

Press Conference 17 October 2000: Question on recent comments by Premier Zhu Rongji. Q: Regarding the discussions, Premier Zhu Rongji mentioned that he has never seen any written apology from the Government of Japan. Do these apologies exist on paper? -- Mr. Yamazaki: From the reports that I have seen from yesterday's press conference, Premier Zhu Rongji said that he appreciated the statement by former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama of 1995.... On TBS on Saturday night, Premier Zhu Rongji mentioned that the Japanese have not apologized in writing. However, on Monday, judging by what he said, Premier Zhu Rongji acknowledged that the Murayama Statement exists, and he appreciated it. You had better ask the Chinese spokesperson as to what conclusion you should draw from Premier Zhu Rongji's words.

Agence France Presse ("ZHU WOOS JAPANESE, BUT WARNS OVER TAIWAN," Tokyo, 10/16/00), the Associated Press (Eric Prideaux, "CHINESE PREMIER CHARMS 'TOWN HALL,'" Tokyo, 10/14/00), and Reuters ("CHINA'S ZHU TERMS JAPAN VISIT A SUCCESS," Tokyo, 10/16/00). PRC Premier Zhu Rongji's six-day visit to Japan and meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori were generally applauded as a success.... However, he said, "We distinguish some militarists from ordinary people. The Japanese people, like the Chinese people, were victims of Japanese militarism. There has indeed been no formal apology in writing for the war of aggression. But, at the same time, we highly appreciated a formal statement made in 1995 by the then premier (Tomiichi) Murayama, which expressed an apology towards the rest of Asia."

The Murayama statement is unsatisfactory for the Chinese because it was addressed to the people of Asia generally and so does not constitute as an apology to China. Japan-China Joint Declaration of 1998 was unsatisfactory because although it was addressed to the Chinese people it did not use clear-cut expressions of apology like the ones used in Japan-S.Korea Joint Declaration. Nothing to do with the lack of the word "World War II." Hermeneus 23:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may not be Japanese, Chinese OR Korean, but have friends in all three countries and currently live and work in Japan with Chinese and Korean collegues (FROM China and Korea, not the US)...ktchong(American-Chinese?), does this allow me to comment? Korean people are most definately more concerned with an apology for ALL of the crimes committed during the Empire of Japan's colonial rule there, from 1910 to 1945, than with something limited to 1936-1945 (the duration of 'actual' warfare in East Asia). On a personal note it does seem to me that many in China and Korea simply 'mis-interpret' Japanese statements through shoddy or selective translation so that they may continue to claim that Japan has not apologised. As a speaker of Japanese who has read the Japanese statements I would say that Japan has apologised, if not humiliated and self-immolated itself as many in China and Korea seem to wish. OK, last personal comment on this board, promise.

Would someone care to draft the sincerest apology possible so we can see by how far these insincere, informal, unapologetic Japanese statements fall short? Then send it to Koizumi. Thanks! —This unsigned comment was added by 140.233.11.40 (talk • contribs) .

"Apology" vs. "Statements of Remorse"

I'm really starting to think deeply about whether "war apology statments" is an appropriate title for the article. I acknowledge that the Japanese side has issued statements regarding the war (with a direct reference to World War II or not), but I'm not sure whether the word "apology" is the right one for some of those statements. For example, on 29 Sept 1972, PM Tanaka stated:

The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. (emphasis added)

Tanaka's official statement (from [9]) in the Chinese version of the diplomatic document was:

日本方面痛感日本国过去由于战争给中国人民造成的重大损害的责任，表示深刻的反省

which could be translated in English to:

The Japanese side feels pain for the responsilities it has to the Chinese people for the tremendous damage caused by war, and expresses its deep self-reflection. (emphasis added)

I think that there is a great difference between "apology" and "remorse." There is a big difference between: "I express my deep apology" and "I express my deep remorse." Remorse means that you feel unfortunate about something that happened because of you, but it has nothing to do with the admission of guilt, which is what "apology" means.

There are many statements in the article that can be deconstructed that pose questions on they can be defined as "apologies", like Showa's statement on 9 Sept 1984, Nakasone's statement on 7 Sept 1984, and Heisei's statement on 24 May 1990.

I'm not making a statement about whether they're sincere statements or not, but I don't know whether those statements should be considered "apologies". If not, then I think it's a good idea to change the title of the article to "List of statements issued by Japan regarding the war."

As a Japanese speaker, I want to point out that most of the comments in this list are not apologies, although some of them are. While I can see why for simplicity you list them all under "apologies", it's a glaring error because it gives the impression that most or even all are actual apologies. They aren't, by any objective reading of the text English or Japanese. It's worth nothing that most Japanese and Japanese politicians don't consider many of these to be apologies by any stretch. If you can't split up this list, the only correct label would be along the lines of "Apologies and Statements of Remorse". I think that's fairly neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.229 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ktchong's point about the ambiguity of those statements in reference to the event. For example, in Tanaka's 1972 statement, which was was he referring to? Was he referring to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5, the Boxer Rebellion in 1901, the Russo-Japanese War that was fought on Chinese soil, the Battle in Shandong with the Germans during World War I, or for the war fought on Chinese soil from 7 Jul 1937 - 15 Aug 1945? Koizumi's statement in Apr 2005 is quite ambiguous, too, in my opinion.

--Bourquie, 25 Jun 2005, 1:34 MDT

I believe "war apology" is the better term to use in the title.

1. "War apology" is the name of this major field of post-war issues like war reparation is. Not remorse or regret. "Remorse" and the rest of similar expressions are all criticized as being short of full-apology, which is the very thing that has been demanded from the Japanese government. it is only that the list includes semi-apology statements as well, and it's up to the readers to decide which ones are apologies and which are not.
2. "List of statements issued by Japan regarding the war" is simply not accurate unless you include statements that glorify and justify the war also. The listed statements have a common theme which is best described as "apology." Take the 1972 Joint Communique that you mentioned above for example. The definition of "apology" in the American Heritage dictionary is "An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense." And the Communique admitted "the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war." In other words, the Japanese government admitted that what they did to the Chinese people was a "fault or offense." It may not be a full apology, but it's fair to say that the statement meets some points necessary for apology as an moral act.
3. "List of regret, remorse, reproach, and apology statements" is unnecessarily verbose.

BTW Japanese "反省" primarily translates to "regret" or "remorse" in English language. Although it has the meaning of "self-reflection" as well, that is obviously not what was meant in the Communique considering the context (as much as "apology" is not meant to be "a formal justification or defense" in such a context).Hermeneus (talk) 09:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase 深くおわびを申し上げたいと思います or variations thereof are used in many of the statements. This is most definately an apology. Also, the words which everyone here merely translates as "remorse" or "self-reflection" contain much deeper emotional content than these English words usually convey. Please do not judge too harshly the actions or words of one culture through the POV of your own unless you feel that you have a deep enough understanding of that culture.

Those words are translated by the Japanese Foreign Ministry. When those documents are tranlated into English and Chinese and are put onto the Japanese Embassy in China website, they're clearly for foreign consumption. Don't you think that the responsbility should be on the Japanese Foreign Ministry to translate those words properly? What is the "much deeper emotional content" that "self-reflection" contains?

Also, I'd like to add that the difference between "apology" and "reproach/self-reflection/regret" is that one of them (the former) means one's assuming legal responsiblity and perhaps be liable for a wrongful act. This is why many national governments aren't willing to go that far and use the word "apology."

Lastly, I've a history degree, with Sino-Japanese diplomatic history being a part of the my field of interest, so Japanese culture isn't as foreign to me as you might think.

~Bourquie, 10 Jul 2005, 3:18 MDT

The Communique says right before "deeply reproaches itself" or "反省" or whatever that "the Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war," which is the very expression of assuming responsibility for a wrongful act. Hermeneus (talk) 18:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Such misunderstanding is the result of sharing characters and phrases that do not translate one to one between the different cultural contexts of the East Asian countries. 反省 in Japanese, as well as in Korean, is a strong moral word that conveys remorse and a commitment through self-reflection towards making sure that an acknowledged wrong is not repeated. On the other hand, in Chinese it carries more introspective connotations, to the point of philosophical detachment. I remember the differences in usage as I have had a professor in an upper level Chinese course correct me several times. This is a case of serious mis-translation, out of laziness perhaps, when the more appropriate Chinese word would be perhaps 后悔, or 感到遗憾。I invite native Japanese speakers to correct me if I'm wrong, but in Japanese, 后悔 seems to me to be used more often on a personal level rather than an institutional one, and 遗憾 seems a weaker term, more formal than 反省, and both lack the connotation of a future commitment to not repeat an acknowledged wrong. Regardless though, I would think that the phrase proceeding, 痛感，"to feel with agony", would make clear the tone of the apology. Perhaps its just a matter of people seeing what they want to see in the text.

Also, as Bourguie notes, the phrase お詫びを申し上げます pops up throughout the statement, which is quite literally "I most humbly offer up my apology." 140.180.159.23 06:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Another New Apology

On August 15, 2005, Koizumi issued another apology below (in Japanese) - can someone translate it into English and post it on the main page?

また、我が国は、かつて植民地支配と侵略によって、多くの国々、とりわけアジア諸国の人々に対して多大の損害と苦痛を与えました。こうした歴史の事実を謙虚に受け止め、改めて痛切な反省と心からのお詫びの気持ちを表明するとともに、先の大戦における内外のすべての犠牲者に謹んで哀悼の意を表します。……　我が国の戦後の歴史は、まさに戦争への反省を行動で示した平和の六十年であります。……　とりわけ一衣帯水の間にある中国や韓国をはじめとするアジア諸国とは、ともに手を携えてこの地域の平和を維持し、発展を目指すことが必要だと考えます。過去を直視して、歴史を正しく認識し、アジア諸国との相互理解と信頼に基づいた未来志向の協力関係を構築していきたいと考えています。

Thanks!

--Metric1031 15:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Emperor Heisei" is disrespectful

"Emperor Heisei" will be the posthumous name of the current Emperor. As he is still alive, he should be referred to as Emperor Akihito.

Agreed. I changed it to read Emperor Akihito. --Dforest 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But the Japanese people call him Heisei-tenno, and when speaking in English, he is the "Heisei Emperor". I've met people who didn't even know his name was "Akihito". There's no disrespect here. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese people and media refer to him as 今上天皇 (kinjou tennou) (the present Emperor) or 天皇陛下 (tennou heika)(His Majesty the Emperor). As per protocol, Emperors do not use names until they die, even though they had names until their "coronation". Problem is, both words are not specific to him, and western media have the habit of naming Japanese emperors by what used to be their first name, i.e. Emperor Hirohito (known in Japan as Emperor Showa), Emperor Akihito, etc. 212.77.176.226 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)François

References

Goodness Gracious. When will China and Korea leave Japan alone?

Just can't believe how much China and Korea brings up this issue of apology so much. By looking at this long list of apology, I would say Japan has apologized. What I feel is that both countries want economic compensation more as. Also they want Japan to accept Chinese and Korean claims that "millions have died" under the Japanese rule. We must remember that when there is a war, the loser is always the "Bad Guy". True, Japan did do many evil act and massacred civilians. However, this is what you call a war. Americans dropped bombs on Japanese cities too (complete illegal act).

Another thing I would like to point out to China and Korea is to look at your own act before accusing others. For China, Their illegal invasion of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and TAiwan. For Korea, Mass murder of Jeju Islander and mass killing of eachother in Korean war, Korean soldiers massacring civillians in Vietnam.

I think Japan has learned their lesson. But you can't just say they are the bad guy.

Also, have China demanded Russia and United Kingdom to apologize for stealing lands from China and massacring Chinese?

<Dolphin>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.142.234 (talk • contribs)

You might as well complain about the Jews since they can't stop talking about the Holocaust... Cha0sth30ry 22:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, your point of view is so limited. You definitely look at things so literally. Indeed, Japan have apologised, but the situation is rather different. Continual acts of unsincerity and unexposed/unconfirmed list of supression are one of the reasons that China and Korea aren't still very happy regarding this. The acts of China and Korea is open, but neither justifiable, yet as I have already mentioned, there are many "unopened" crimes that many just claim that are untrue due to the fact that victims were fake etc... This could or could not have be true. HistoryManiac 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Japan said it is sorry that this happened, that does not mean it apologised for its war crime yet. It never said that Japan apologises to China, Korea and all the other countries they attacked. Bobbybuilder 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Who else were these apologies to then and what else were they for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.115.233 (talk • contribs)

They are not apologies, and they are for the UN and people like you to hear. These statements were intended to let people like you to sympathise Japan while it avoids the actual responsibilities. Bobbybuilder 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is disgusting that someone wants to pretend that Japan has apologised for its war crimes. It is even more disgusting to see people from Taiwan, who also had a lot of suffering caused by Japan, so eager to defend for the Japanese war crimes. Bobbybuilder 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Some choose to accept apologies and move on - instead of obsessing with the past forever - and get accused of "defending war crimes" (come on, it's not the same thing is it) and their opinions dismissed with a label "disgusting". Shame!! Phonemonkey 26 April 2006

Some shameless people like to pretend nothing happened and they think they can forgive things which they have no right to forgive. Did Japan apologise? No. They said that they are "sorry that this happened", that is not an apology. How do you accept apologies when there are no apologies?

I am sorry that you cannot understand the difference. Bobbybuilder 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am sorry that I also cannot understand the difference you speak of - the difference between a "heartfelt expression of deep remorse and apology" and an apology. Would you care to explain?

Before you jump to conclusions, like yourself I have no time for history revisionism either. So the notion that viewing these statements as apologies somehow constitute "defending war crimes" and "pretending nothing happened" (in your own words) is utterly absurd and offensive to say the least. TK, 6 June 2006

Thank you for your inputs. I believe that to join the discussion here people need to at least read and write English well enough. It is a pity that you did not have either ability. I feel deeply sorry for that. Bobbybuilder 02:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that for people like Bobbybuilder, no apology will ever be sincere enough. If someone explicitly says that they apologise, it should count as an apology for any sensible person. Out of curiosity, Bobbybuilder, what would you consider sufficient? Or is Japan forever condemned to be the subject of righteous hatred from her neighbours? - TK, Helsinki, Finland June 26 2006

Thank you, Bobbybuilder, for your rather childish attempt at personal offense, which fails to actually address any of the points I have raised. Shall I repeat them? Why is a "heartfelt expression of deep remorse and apology" not an apology? How does an acceptance of an apology make one guilty of "defending war crimes"? I hope my questions are phrased sufficiently beautifully this time - at least enough for them to deserve a logical response, because I am actually interested in the basis of your judgement. TK, 26 June 2006

The translational error says there's an apology doesn't make it really an apology. Forcing the victim countries to accept apology when there's no apology is defending the war crimes. For that self-proclaimed Tommi who was never registered, has Japan ever been condemned? If it really is sorry for its war crimes, why does its official history textbook denies these crimes? why did they think those war criminals who were causing so much suffering in Asia were just protecting the territory of Japan? What do I consider sufficient is when Japan face their war crimes like Germany does, that's when it will be sufficient. Is it too much to ask? Are Japanese less able than German? Bobbybuilder 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now back to your statement, let's look t at the original quote: こうした歴史の事実を謙虚に受け止め、改めて痛切な反省と心からのお詫びの気持ちを表明するとともに、先の大戦における内外のすべての犠牲者に謹んで哀悼の意を表します, I have only seen "deep remorse", but where is that word "apology" here? (お詫び = sorry that this unintended event happened) It's only added in the translation! Bobbybuilder 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You are the one making a caviling "translational error." お詫び = apology. That's how everybody else than yourself translate. The remorse-is-not-apology criticism is so 10 years ago. --211.126.63.227 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not going to register just to counter some nationalist lies on Wikipedia. As for that "official history textbook" canard, the offending books were available to less than a percent of Japan's schoolkids. In other words, the response to it was completely out of proportion. Again: What is an acceptable apology to you? At least in my culture, rejecting a sincere apology is considered very rude. Maybe it's okay in yours. - TK

So your "everybody else" excludes China and Korea, that's so very convenient for you. お詫び means "I am sorry that this happened", it's like I am deeply sorry for your lack of intellegence, maybe you want to take that as my sincere apology as well, or perhaps lack of intellegence is part of your culture also. About that less than 1% of school kids, did Japanese government approved such offensive book as their history textbook or not? It's simple as that. Can Germany allow any holocaust-denial book as part of their education system? Is it too much to compare Japan to Germany? Bobbybuilder 00:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when you represent China and Korea? Neither the PRC nor ROK nor DPRK government has ever pressed such a ridiculous complaint. "Japan apologizes to South Koreans for occupation" (CNN, October 8, 1998): "Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi on Thursday issued his country's strongest apology to date to the South Korean people for 35 years of brutal colonial rule. A joint declaration made by Obuchi and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who is visiting Tokyo, said Obuchi 'expressed deep remorse and extended a heartfelt apology to the people of South Korea, having humbly accepted the historical fact that Japan inflicted heavy damage and pain on the people of South Korea through its colonial rule.' It was the first written apology ever issued to an individual country by Japan for its actions before and during World War II. Kim accepted the apology and Japan's recognition of the past, and acknowledged that it went deeper than previous Japanese apologies for the war." --211.126.63.227 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Babel Fish translation [10] and Jim Breen's WWWJDIC [11] shows お詫び = apology. Also let's stick to facts here: the controversial Foshosha textbook is accused of DOWNPLAYING not DENYING war crimes (see Excerpts from government approved Japanese history textbooks). Shameless attempt at whitewash all the same, but no Japanese schoolkid - NOT EVEN the 0.5% (or whatever) of them who HAPPEN to be taught with THIS particular textbook - come out of education with zero knowledge of their country's crimes (provided they paid attention at class, which is another matter). I wonder which country in the world other than Germany this could apply to, but I'm fairly certain China isn't one of them. [[Phonemonkey 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)]]

Great, so CNN represents China and Korea now, that's logical. PRC never passed complaints? That's very funny, then what are you discussing here? I remember it's you people complaining that PRC and ROK choose not to forgive Japan. Besides, please study some history to understand the difference between Japanese colonisation and its WWII war crimes. It apologised for the colonial rules, but not for the war crimes. Phonemonkey, do you understand the difference behind the four levels of apology in the Japanese language? 'cos I doubt your almighty Babelfish can give you that information. This お詫び is used over something unintentional. I will ask you again, did or did not the Japanese government, even after the strong protests from both neighbour countries and some Japanese history scholars, approve that controversial textbook as one of the official history textbooks? I would love to comment on your last sentence if that was grammatically correct or readible. What exactly do you want to achieve here? Do you think China will forgive and forget about these war crimes because you said so? Go read about Nanjing Massacre, Contest To Cut Down 100 People, Unit 731, Comfort Women, then tell me that "I'm sorry that this event happened" was good enough as an apology. Who are you to say that China or any other victim countries have no right to demand a more sincere apology from Japan? Bobbybuilder 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Throughout the 70's and the 80's, the main bone of contention was actually the lack of the word お詫び. Funny that, has the goalpost moved? As for the last sentence in my previous post I was pointing out that Japan's willingness to recognise its past misdeeds is actually a lot higher than the international norm. Germany is an exception, only the Nazis embarked on a campaign of systematic annihilation of an entire race. A lot of other countries could at least make a start (and that's not to say Japan couldn't go further). I hope my post was more "readible" this time and free of grammatical errors which I seem to spot more in Bobbybuilder's posts than anyone else's, but I'll leave it at that. Anyone interested in a slightly more mature debate about this topic may want to have a look at Foreign Dispatches [12]. [[Phonemonkey 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)]]

You still did not answer the questions and you advertised a blog here. Well done, that's very mature. Good luck with your Japanese extreme-right philosophy. We need people like you to let the entire world understand how important school education is. Bobbybuilder 01:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fenqings twist and distort the simple meaning of every apology statement to make it out to be an absurdly insincere one so that they could harbor adamant hatred against the Japanese and nurture the twisted love of the murderous totalitarian regime forever. It doesn't matter how ever an apology statement is written because they will always exaggerate the slightest nuance of a word in it to their advantage and loudly complain as if it made some of the most outrageous and obscene claim. It should be remembered that such fenqings hardly represent the entire nation of China, and so we should treat them for the kind of poor juvenile ideologues that they are and nothing more. There are many mature rational Chinese friends also. --222.1.46.230 01:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always other people's fault ay. Again, good luck with your Japanese extreme-right philosophy. Your statement just proved that why most of Chinese don't believe that Japan has done enough to show their apology. Bobbybuilder 03:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So now it seems that to Bobbybuilder, any opinion which doesn't precisely echo his own is a conclusive sign that the person concerned is a sympathiser of the Japanese far right - no matter that I have actually called the controversial textbook a whitewash and stated that there's no harm in further Japanese apologies, but hey, why let trivial matters such as reason get in the way of knee-jerk reactions. Is this a common trait among people like you who are hell bent on cruicifying pacifist Japan for events 70 years ago, or are you unique in your abilities for wholesale dismissal of logic?

The reason why I linked to that blog (which isn't mine) is because there is a rational, mature debate about the topic which I thought people may be interested in, as there doesn't seem to be much chance of it happening here. I was also hoping that Bobbybuilder would learn what "rational debate" is from example, but it seems he is not ready for that yet. Phonemonkey 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, the title of this discussion is "Goodness Gracious. When will China and Korea leave Japan alone?", my statement was that China and Korea should not leave Japan alone until a real apology is given, and you are arguing against that. You spent most of the time argueing having a controversial textbook is alright because it's not widely used yet, and I said that the number is not the issue, the issue is that the government approved this kind of textbook as one of their official textbooks. Nevertheless, you are still trying to defend that textbook, meanwhile calling other people illogical, and that's hypocritical.

The truth is, Japan apologises now because it just recognised after years of soaring economy that it needs China and Korea more than ever before. So if it wants to apologise, then it has to make sure the apology can satisfy both China and Korea. Remember, it's not China who needs their apology, it's Japan who needs China's economy. So you can go back to your pro-Japan blog and indulge in that imaginary little world. Besides, now we can all see that your definition of "rational and mature" means "pro-Japan". Pacifist Japan? Ha. Bobbybuilder 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh Bobkins Bobkins Bobkins, what am I to do with you? I have said TWICE already that the controversial textbook is an attempt at whitewash - but in your usual style, you are now accusing me of "defending" this textbook. But that's OK - I'm starting to feel that you just can't help it! What I've been taking issue with, little Bobkins, is precisely this: the fact that when there's something you don't agree with, your consistent mode of reaction is to wildly exaggerate that point of view so you can attempt to label it as extremist.

• You don't think these apologies should be accepted? Fine, but some others do, and it doesn't make them guilty of "defending war crimes".
• Think Japan has never apologised? Feel free, but disagreeing with you does not equal "pretending nothing happened".
• A textbook which tones down references to war crimes was indeed approved by the government (and shame to that), but "Japan's official textbook denies crimes" is an exaggerated sweeping statement.
• Pointing out the global track record of national apologies does not automatically make one a sympathiser for Japanese militarists...

THIS is how you're making rational debate impossible, whatever anyone says is blown out of proportion. I don't know whether your accusations stem from simple patriotic hot-headedness on your part or a crude, deliberate attempt to smear those with opinions which differ from yours - but in any case I hope you realise that such absurd, unconstructive comments do nothing but offend people and undermine your own argument. Hugs 'n kisses, Phonemonkey 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Saying "Goodness Gracious. When will China and Korea leave Japan alone?" when Japan is officially glorifying their war criminals is defending war crimes.

2. Japan did not apologise, and forcing the victim countries to accept some non-apology and to move on is asking the victim countries to "pretend nothing happened".

3. Is that textbook one of the official textbooks? does it say invasion of Shanghai is out of self-defense? Did it change the name of "Nanjing Massacre" to "Nanjing event" and try to make the illusion that this "event" is just some natural course of war? then what's wrong with the statement "Japan's official textbook denies crimes"? Besides, You call other people using exaggerated sweeping statement? what a hypocrite.

4. You want to force the victim countries to accept some random statements as apologies, and that's what Extreme-right Japanese sympathisers do.

Are you offended? I didn't say you offended millions of Chinese and Koreans and now YOU are here crying that you are offended? Boo hoo, cry me a river. Why don't you just go home and hug your Hello Kitty? Bobbybuilder 04:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

hey guys i just wanted to say a few words. i am half japanese and half american. my grandfathers fought eachother in the war and i have studied the pacific war immensely. bobby, first of all, war criminals are decided by the victor. if the americans had lost WWII, general macarthur and other commanders would've surely been tried and convicted as a war criminals for dropping two nuclear bombs onto japan. besides the nukes being dropped, there was also the fire bombing of tokyo which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians as well. people in japan go to yasukuni shrine to pay respects to soldiers who died in battle and hope they lay in peace. i am not denying that these japanese generals massacred thousands of people, im just saying we hope they lie in peace and hope that another war such as WWII never happens again. secondly, the japanese government has apologized not only to the chinese and koreans but many east and southeast asians. the government has put together compensation packages for former comfort women in phillippines and taiwan in addition to these apologies. thirdly, i dont think these apologies are random statements. i view these as genuine apologies from the government as representing the majority of the japanese people. japan, ever since the end of WWII, has been the world leader in giving aid. japan has committed to world peace and compensation for its asian neighbors. im just curious bobby, whats your nationality? --Sesloan 07:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bobkin's latest interesting set of posts..

• 1 & 2 - "Defending war crimes" means trying to justify war crimes. People accepting what they take as Japanese apologies doesn't make them guilty of justifing war crimes. And by accepting what they take as an apology, they would obviously not be pretending that they weren't victims of war crimes, but quite the opposite.
• 3 - The thing that's wrong with that statement is that it implies that the textbook is Japan's only official one, and that it denies that war crimes have taken place. Denying war crimes is to state that war crimes did not take place (as opposed to glossing it over). I have not read the textbook, but I have not heard that the book makes such statements. To clarify yet again, I am taking issue with your gratuitous use of hyperbole, not with your opposition to the textbook.
• 4 - I take it you are implying that I am a sympathiser for the Japanese right wing simply on that basis? That's what's known as an association fallacy. And if that's your basis of argument, it's a perfect example of argumentum ad hominem - an attack on person as a substitute for logic. In short, your line of argument seems to be the following.

'A makes claim X.'

'Bs also make claim X'

'Therefore, A is a B.' (association fallacy)

'There is something objectionable about B.'

'Therefore claim X is false.' (ad hominem)

Two perfect examples of logical fallacy in one line of argument.

• Oh Bobkins, by the way, thanks for your final Hello Kitty comment. I take it that was your response to what I said about immature, unconstructive comments which only undermine their own credibility? Oh the irony.. Phonemonkey 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Phonemonkey, you are just irrelevant. Sesloan, if you checked carefully, the Japanese government did NOT provide any fund to compensate the Comfort Women. The fund was from a non-governmental organisation "Asian Peace and Friendship Foundation for Women" which was set up to quiet down the victims and avoid official apologies. Any victims who accepted the compensation from this fund had to sign a agreement for not suing the Japanese government for its war crimes. Don't give me those "paying respect" yadayada, ask yourself how can those soldiers lay in peace when they are in the very same shrine with the A-class war criminals? and you should ask your government why it insists on letting these war criminals be in the same shrine as the other soldiers? My family is from the Mainland China, and I have the Republic of China's nationality. If Japan does not officially recognise it's war crimes during WWII, how can it promote world peace? I think you are rather confused about giving money to other countries and promoting peace or justice. Bobbybuilder 03:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

bobby,

why are you so angry? were you personally affected by what happened in WWII? why do you hold a grudge against the Japanese government when they have done nothing to you personally? Do you know how much aid they provide China?

1.) In response to the issue of comfort women, I want you to read an excerpt of this article from the Toronto Star, dated March 9, 2001:

"Specifically, with regard to the issue of "comfort women," the government of Japan has repeatedly stated that this was a grave affront to the honour and dignity of women and expressed its sincere apologies to former "comfort women. "

In accordance with such recognition, the Asian Women's Fund (AWF) was established in 1995 by the joint efforts of the government and people of Japan. The AWF has extended payments, donated by Japanese people, to many of these women; the fund has extended a letter to these women from the Japanese prime minister expressing the government's apologies and remorse; and the fund has implemented medical and welfare support projects, funded by the national budget, that aim to improve the living standards for these women. In addition, the government of Japan has made contributions to the fund for its operating costs and its medical and welfare support projects, and is doing its utmost to ensure that the goals of the fund are achieved."

As you can see, this fund was establish by the people of japan and THE GOVERNMENT. The article also states that the prime minister apologized. so maybe you should check more carefully next time.

2.) on the subject of class A criminals. these men were tried and convicted by the victor of the pacific war, the US. of course they would be labelled as class A criminals. im sure many American generals would be labelled as war criminals if they had lost the war to the Japanese. Should Genernal MacArthur be buried in the Arlington National Cemetary when he ordered the nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? There has never been a trial for war crimes committed by any victors of wars in the 20th century.

Bobby, seriously, how many more apologies do you want? 2? 5? 10? and where do you get your information? Do you live inside China? And why are you so arrogant and mad?

--Sesloan 06:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So my argument is now "irrelevant" now, eh Bobkins? So are you beating a hasty retreat out of your sandpit with both ears covered while mumbling ner-ner-ner, i can't hear you? OK, if that's your style...

Just for the record, Bobkin's claim that the Japanese government is insisting that the war criminals remain in Yasukuni is (surprise!) completely incorrect, it's those shinto priests in funny hats being difficult, citing old bits of paper... Phonemonkey 13:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sesloan, the apology and fund should come from legislative assembly. The receivers of the fund signed off their right to seek legislative compensations from the Japanese government, and that's the goal of AWF, to avoid the government's legal responsibilities. The Japanese government is non-sincere enough to even deny that AWF is a governmental organisation.

I do not live inside China, simple as that. Talking about arrogance, saying "how many more apologies do you want? 2? 5? 10?" that's arrogant. Are you claiming the citizens died in Nanjing Massacre were not innocent? You can only compare these two cases only if the nuclear bombing happened AFTER Japan declared its defeat, which was not true. The two nuclear bombs forced Japan to withdraw from the war immediately, they served a purpose. Nanjing Massacre happened when Nanjing was already lost to Japan, and it happened because Japanese soldiers felt like to kill the civilians. If you disagree then please tell me what purpose did Nanjing Massacre serve?

From what you have said it clearly indicates that you don't believe people who committed these war crimes are war criminals, so thank you for reinforcing my statement about how Japanese show no regrets about their war crimes in WWII.

You know what, Japan owes the entire Asia the apology for so long now that we don't mind waiting for another few years. We don't NEED your apology to survive. Now it's you who needs to apologise to the rest of Asia to repair the damage and help your economy, so get off your high horse. Bobbybuilder 00:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

haha, come on bobby. you have to be kidding me. never once did i not say japanese didnt commit 'war crimes'. i agree with you that they committed horrendous acts, i never denied that. and apologies have come from not only people in the legislative assembly but other branches. i call you arrogant because of your high horse and hello kitty comments. people have a hard time having a civilized argument with you because you say those things. im asking how many more apologies are necessary because i am quite serious. or maybe i should how should the japanese apologize? better yet, when would you let it go and move on? if you dont think japanese regret the war, come to japan. ive met soldiers from the war, including my grandfather. im sure they can tell you how they felt about these japanese atrocities. the dropping of the nuclear bombs can be argued. i feel as though japan was on the brink of surrenduring after they lost okinawa and the americans cut off supply lines to the south pacific. so i dont get it. do you want another apology or do you not want another apology? im asking whether you're in china or not because i question your sources of information. bc i know the chinese government tends to censor and manipulate some information. please do not attack me personally for what happened in WWII. i had nothing to do with it. i would never apologize to your for something that does concern me. as for yourself, i think you need to come to grips that japan as issused numerous apologies and that china, korea and japan need to move on together. yes, we should reflect on history so that it never repeats itself but at the same time not dwell on it so much that there is still rift between nations. --Sesloan 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't admit the results from the Tokyo trial, which means you deny that people like Iwane Matsui was a war criminal.

You appeared arrogant first and then you want to call me arrogant? give me a break. How many more apologies? do you know it's not the times the government needs to apologise, but what it is doing to show its sincerity? If every time your government wants to apologise one day and glorify these war criminals the next day, then it can apologise one million times and that still won't be enough.

Do I want another apology or not? How generous of you. I personally don't need your apology, and like I said before, China and Korea don't want insincere apologies. You don't have to worry about apologising, no one wants your apology anyway, it should come from the governmental level.

From what I understand, your information is distorted by your government, so don't critise China, Japan is not much better when dealing with the historical facts in WWII.Bobbybuilder 04:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

according to international law, those japanese generals are all war criminals. the term war criminal has different connotations and is subjective. but nonetheless, i agree they were horrible people who did horrible things to innocent people.

how did i appear arrogant? i read the previous comments you made to others and its sad to see you make comments about getting off high horses and hugging hello kitties. its just childish. i have yet call you anything or make a foolish remark.

you make it sounds as if every single goverment official takes a field trip every year ot yasukuni when in reality less thana handful of officials go there to pray. even prime ministers before koizumi never went to pray there.

my government does not distort information. they dont control who makes textbooks or what is printed. unlike china, japan has many freedoms where people and groups of people are able to voice their opinion without it turning into a tiananmen massacre. if its anybody who distorts or hides information, its china.

trust me bobby, 99% of the people in japan are aware and acknowledge what happened in WWII. many people, including chinese and koreans, have moved on and tried to create a better relationship with japan. but its people like you who hinder these efforts.

bobby, how old are you? a teenager? were YOU personally affected by WWII? do i feel sorry and ashamed of what the japanese did in WWII? of course, but and dont worry, i would never apologize about anything. you know why? bc i wasnt a part of WWII.

move on bobby, move on. --Sesloan 04:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sesloan, there isn't much which can be done about individuals who are determined to cling to their obsessive nationalist causes, because to them their unfortunate emotional attachment to their cause is more important than soundness of logical arguments based on historical facts. Hence any arguments or facts which may endanger their obsession is dealt with not with an open mind and logical criticism, but rejected ad hominem with a torrent of abuse, deliberately mis-interpretated to distort its meaning, or even simply ignored hands-over-ears. Some of those who demand further apologies, of course, are open to reasonable debate (I myself think that Japan could do better, for example apologise specifically for the Nanjing Massacre) but with others you can present them with counterarguments backed up with facts until the cows come home. I've seen exactly the same trait in Japanese nationalists, and it seems this particular Chinese nationalist is just the same sorry species on the other side of the divide. In any case it is obvious that there would be no end to the above so-called "debate", and I propose stopping it now as it has nothing to do with the actual Wikipedia article. Best wishes, Phonemonkey 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sesloan, I already explained how did you appear arrogant, if you are arrogant enough to choose to ignore that, then that's also fine by me. Asking you to get off your high horse isn't a sign of arrogrance, if you bothered to check the definition, "get off your high horse" was asking YOU to stop being so arrogant. "Many people, including chinese and koreans, have moved on and tried to create a better relationship with japan."? Again, another arrogant statement. You are still confused about the current international statues of Japan. Japan is a country in decline for over 10 years now, and you forget that it's Japan who needs to repair its relationship with the neighbouring countries, and it's Japan who needs to make the effort. What Japan is doing NOW is insulting the Chinese and Korean history, which is part of the present. You should be ashamed of what your government is doing NOW as well. I think you need to grow up to see that everything which doesn't have a closure will continue going.

Your statement is asking people to "move on", to forget the fact that Japan insulted the neighbouring countries and is still trying to avoid its responsiblities. That is simply impossible. Why don't you go to any court and ask those plaintiffs to just "move on"?

Your government doesn't control what's printed as textbooks? Your naivity amazes me. Every government controls what's used as textbooks, it is called the SCHOOL CURRICULA. How old are you for not knowing this? Besides, you can attack communism however you like, I am not communist anyway. Besides, what's happening inside China does not change the fact that Japan has not properly apologised or faced its criminal past. It's pathetic you brought up these irrelevant things as the excuses for your government not apologising. Talking about voicing opinions, Japanese killed those aboriginal people in Taiwan because they voiced their opinions.

Only a handful of officials? That's very comforting(!) Isn't that the very official who tried to show his remorse over the war crimes? Then why did he go pay the respect to the war criminals? His actions contradicted his words, and why should China and Korea tolerate this kind of behaviour? Bobbybuilder 23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

bobby, this is going to be my last posting. i agree with phonemonkey in that sometime you just can have a civilized argument for learning purposes. in my opinion, you are lost and unwilling to listen to others. i am not going to sink myself down your level by talkig to you arrogantly as you have done with me and others. =)

japan is actually on the rebound from an economic recession and still holds the worlds seocnd biggest economy. also, japan is also on the brink of securing a permanent seat on the security council. i dont understand why you say they're on the decline. the population is declining, maybe you were tlaking about that.

once again, you never cited your sources and im sure your information came from some chinese extremist's website. out of the 9 million soldiers at yasukuni, 12 of them are war criminals. many peoples families are buried there so please have some respect.

i hope one day you will let down your guard and move on with your life. good bye builder of bobby, and good luck with the olympics --Sesloan 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What a pathetic attempt! Talk about respects to the dead, why the government won't return the Taiwanese and Korean soldiers, who were forced to fight for the Japanese side and were forced to be part of the Yasukuni Shrine, back to their own countries? Where is the respect here? Out of those soldiers at Yasukuni, 14 of them are Class A war criminals, that does not mean none of the rest of them are war criminals, they are just not Class A. Yasukuni published the brochure glorifying those war crimes. Where are my sources? You can just go ahead and find those brochures online.

CIA profile: China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US in 2005. Now, where is your source of Japan still being the world's second biggest economy? Who is the one not citing sources?

You can have your own opinion, but it is sad to see there are people like you and Phonemonkey who confuse opinions with facts.

The last comment is the most pathetic attempt, you are trying to project your mental image onto the other people. Let me tell you again, my country is not hosting the olympics, and you are once again confusing your opinion with the facts. It's not only China who doesn't like you arrogant Japanese.

I hope one day Japan can find its conscience and sincerely apologise, even though from your behaviour we can see that the possibility of that is getting smaller and smaller. Bobbybuilder 02:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sesloan! I'm glad you also saw the futility of dealing with someone so immune to logic and fact. I still can't help though, but be puzzled by Bobkin's strange concept of stripping certain soldiers from a memorial shrine on the basis of their ethnicity, the bizarre notion that this would allow them to "return to their home countries" (I'd love to peek inside Bobkin's imagination to see exactly what is going to be returned, as the soldiers' remains are not actually there), and the whimsical claim that the failure to perform such religious rites is the responsibility of the Japanese government (what next? It's like asking the White House to excommunicate people from the church)....but enough time has been wasted on topics from a parallel universe, so I'm leaving this "discussion" at that. Best wishes, Phonemonkey 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Phonemonkey is irrelevant. The entry of Yasukuni Shrine is there but this poor guy just doesn't know how to read. Such a pity that even Wikipedia cannot help illiteracy. Bobbybuilder 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

bobby, you are truly lost. lost and arrogant to be exact and it's a shame. i hope you dont represent the majority of the chinese public. --Flipside03 05:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That was coming from some Jap who still thinks America is to blame for their atomic bombing. Truely pathetic. Bobbybuilder 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You actually trying to be taken seriously, using language like that, Bobkins? Phonemonkey 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

excuse me? jap? did you call me a jap? not only are you arrogant, but a racist--Flipside03 01:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't show respect to your neighbouring countries, and you deserve no respects. Bobbybuilder 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

lemme get this straight. so you're blaming me for wwii? i didnt show respect? i wasnt even alive before 1984. you're on drugs--Flipside03 06:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You want the entire Asia to "get over" the Japanese crimes. Did I blame you for WWII? Do you have to be in WWII to be disrespect to the neighbouring countries? I am not on drugs, but you are being an idiot. Bobbybuilder 10:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

you claimed that i "didnt show respect to my neigboring countries" what on earth are you talking about? ive travelled to korea and china, i even have korean and chinese friends. MY ROOMMATE IS CHINESE AND HE ACTUALLY LIKES ME. jesus bobby, if you want to argue at least learn how to speak proper english. --Flipside03 01:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have travelled to Korea and China, and what exactly did that prove? If you had a spine then you would argue about this in front of your so-called-Korean and Chinese friends. You criticise other people's English? YOU? ha. Bobbybuilder 09:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

that's the point bob. me and my friends could careless about what happened 60 years ago. my friends aren't crazy Japanese haters like yourself. and yes, im criticizing your english. i hear english lessons in china are pretty cheap...why don't you take some classes? laugh it up you racist Flipside03 09:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you have Chinese friends, the war crimes done by Japan all the sudden disappeared. Very good argument. you "hear english lessons in china are pretty cheap"? There are free online courses for your level, you should go have a look. Bobbybuilder 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sesloan and Bobkins. This is a place for discussion, not a slanging match, english language competition, or racist comments. Phonemonkey 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To chip in with my own 2 cents, as a Korean citizen who has studied in the US, Japan, and China, hatemongering against other ethnic groups (especially, but not exclusively against the Japanese) is a time-honored tactic for ensuring national solidarity in both the PRC and ROK. Their governments have received economic aid and apologies for decades yet cannot acknowledge that the Japan issue is for the most part dead.

Up to this point, Japan-hating has been a rather harmless pastime and an easy way for these governments to shore up support in times of lagging revolutionary spirit (China) or democratic unpopularity (ROK).

However, if they actually fear a rising tide of Japanese extremist nationalism, they should realize that they are actually helping their opponents. Much of right wing rhetoric goes "There is no point in acting apologetic and working with our neighbors, we have already given them money and apologized deeply, yet they continue to hate us with a great national fervor and do nothing while North Korea kidnaps our people and builds nukes against us. We need to fight fire with fire, rewrite the history books, and take pride in our heritage of a strong, assertive, militaristic Japan." Every hardline stance against Japan, every bombastic statement, weakens the position of Japanese liberals and moderates who wish to cooperate with the rest of East Asia.140.180.159.23 07:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They are NOT saying that Japan hasn't made any apology statements. What many people trying to say is that "if you are sorry, please take an action that possibly pay off their guilt". As a Canadian, even I feel like Japan is saying "I'm so sorry, but there's nothing I can do now. It's been a long time, eh? And since I made an apology, please just ignore that old history." 129.97.245.62 05:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of them ARE saying that Japan hasn't apologized at all. Thanks to this Wikipedia article there are a little fewer who say some ignorant bs like that on the net now, but there still are many who do. War reparation/compensation is the same. Japanese Wikipedia has a good article on this. Maybe somebody should translate it also to shut up those ignorant haters a little. It's rather funny that they are accusing the Japanese of not knowing "correct" history without realizing how ignorant they themselves are. --222.3.76.32 08:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe when stuff like the following stops happening

http://www.japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=365

In the final stages before the documentary went to air, crucial alterations were made to its content. New material was added, in the form of an interview with Hata Ikuhiko, a historian well known for his denial of the Japanese military's responsibility for the “Comfort Station” system, and one of the Tribunal's most outspoken critics. Tribunal organizers who had taken part in the program were given no opportunity to respond to his criticisms. All references to the Tribunal's condemnation of the late Emperor Hirohito were expunged. After the meeting with Abe, and in the twenty-four hours before the airing of the program, senior NHK management demanded further last minute changes. The length of the broadcast was be cut from 44 to 40 minutes; testimony by Chinese victims of military sexual abuse was excised, as was the testimony of former Japanese soldiers who spoke of the military's responsibility for the “comfort station” system and of the violence inflicted on the women recruited to work there. The final version of the documentary included no visual footage of the Tribunal's proceedings at all and no mention of its findings. After the broadcast of the program, members of the leading Japanese NGO behind the Tribunal, VAWW-Net Japan (Violence Against Women in War - Network Japan), protested that NHK had violated the terms under which they had agreed to cooperate with the making of the program, and sued the broadcaster and two production companies involved in making the documentary for damages. The case is still continuing.

Oh yeah, and last I heard, other countries in war time weren't vivisecting civilians. Or setting up intricate, large-scale, systematic rape camps. I don't *quite* think that can be equated with bomb-dropping. Harvesting Korean ears is a bit odd, too.

By the way, one last detail. No one in America really denies the bombing of Japan. Yet, Japan tries its best to deny or downplay its so-called wartime activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogleii (talk • contribs)

You're right. America glorifies it. Didn't it try to issue a stamp with a mushroom cloud on it on the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima?

As for Korean ears, that was in 1597. The middle ages. What exactly is your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.115.233 (talk • contribs)

moogleii, why are you so upset? japan is slowly but surely coming to grips with what exactly happened in WWII. japan has provided so much aid to the koreas as well as china. i think the main reason why the chinese are still so upset is bc the communist government refuses to tell them that they're receiving aid from japan. --Sesloan 07:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Providing aids can avoid criminals' legal/ethical responsiblities? Let's close down the justice department and all the courts then. Bobbybuilder 00:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

no, im just saying not only has japan apologized numerous times, but also compensated financially. well will you stop calling japan criminals? --Sesloan 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Will Japan admit its criminal past? If Japan stops glorifying the war criminals, and officially recognise its wrong doing through a legislative way, then perhaps China and Korea will move on. Bobbybuilder 04:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

we dont glorigy them, we pray for their souls to lay in peace. and we have apologized, numerous times from numerous people. i think bobby wants a personal apology from every member of the japanese diet, as well as myself, the prime minister, etc...--Sesloan 04:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Glorify? Oh here we go again. You just can't help it can you Bobkins? Sesloan, if you look through the last section you'll notice that all you'll ever get back from this individual is factual inaccuracies, hyperbole, logical fallacies and emotive/abusive language. Please refer to my last post in the previous section about preventing the unnecessary growth of this pointless exchange. Many thanks, Phonemonkey 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, let's put aside Yasukuni, why don't you tell everyone what is 殉国七士廟[| local government official website]? Bobbybuilder 23:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said it's obviously not going to lead nowhere but since you ask, that'd be where the ashes of seven executed war criminals are buried by a few rightist nuts in some secluded mountainside. This place is where war criminals are actually glorified. Of course (to Bobkin's disappointment I'm sure) it's got nothing to do with the Japanese government, I doubt any official has even been near this obscure place, and you'd be hard pushed to find a Japanese person who's even heard of it, but feel free to make a big fuss out of it if you wish. Phonemonkey 15:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The memorial mentioned on that local authority tourist website you linked to is something completely different, you fool! Phonemonkey 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

比島観音is sitting right next to 殉国七士廟. There's something called GOOGLE that you can search by yourself. Poor Japanese extreme-rightist, lazy and uneducated. Bobbybuilder 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So to summarise: The "Japanese government officially glorifies war crimes" because some obscure grave of class A war criminals is almost mentioned in a local rural tourism information page. Glad we got that cleared up. And on that note, I'll leave you to continue entertaining people with your colourful logic and debating skills. Big hugs'n kisses, Phonemonkey 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The local government put that as a tourist attraction. You can save your big hugs and kisses, but use your brain please. No wonder your arguments are irrelevant. Bobbybuilder 06:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Phonemonkey is irrelevant. Bobbybuilder 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

such a pity. bobby, you must have so much hatred in yourself for you to be angry with japan. i mean, were you directly affected by wwii? my relatives died from the atomic bomb that hit nagasaki and my family does not hold any grudges with americans. many people have moved on, and you should too. --Flipside03 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not angry with Japan, I am angry with people who tried to manipulate the history. Your country was invading other countries at the time when the atomic bomb exploded. If your emperor declared defeat earlier then he could avoid the bombing from happening. Simple as that. It is your emperor's fault and your stupid Japanese government's miscalculation afterall. Bobbybuilder 20:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not angry with Chinese either but feel very sorry for brainwashed fenqings and their criminal totalitarian regime that vigorously promotes hatred for national solidarity and blind loyalty toward the regime. --222.3.78.184 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is apparent that you cannot face your own government's wrong doing and you need to accuse everyone against you fenqings. Towards which regime exactly? Chinese? Korean? Taiwanese? Phillipino? Japan owes apologies to all these countries, are they under the same regime? You are the one being blinded by the Japanese extreme right propaganda to think people wanting justice are all fenqings. By the way, using IP instead of your user name cannot hide the fact that you are still that ignorant and irrelevant Phonemonkey. Bobbybuilder 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you damn fool! Argue as you wish but don't attribute someone else's quotes to me. Phonemonkey 02:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

stupid government? the japanese people aren't stupid, we know what happeened. so you support the use of atomic bombs on civilians? i think the chinese especially have been brainwashed and are encouraged to continue their hatred toward the japanese people. "After all, the negative image that Chinese people have of Japan is to a large extent a reflection of Chinese communist propaganda over the years that emphasised the party's role in resisting Japanese aggression in the 1930s and 1940s.

At the same time, Beijing has given Japan little credit for its large-scale economic aid to China for more than a quarter of a century. Because the controlled press has not publicised this information, the vast majority of Chinese remain ignorant of the help Japan has extended to China, especially when the country was on the verge of bankruptcy as it emerged from the Cultural Revolution.

Only now are scholars in China beginning to speak up about the one-sidedness of Chinese propaganda. One scholar, Tao Wenzhao of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has suggested that China should "recognise Japan's contributions to China's economic construction" and pointed out that Japan was the first country to lift economic sanctions imposed on China after the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Since the party controls the Press it should be entirely possible for Beijing to gradually change its propaganda line on Japan." Copyright 2006 New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad All Rights Reserved New Straits Times (Malaysia) June 29, 2006 Thursday

--Flipside03 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You want to compare Nanjing Massacre to the atomic bombing? Let's see, you killed innocent civilians for FUN, what exactly did Nanjing massacre achieve? The atomic bombing was to force Japanese government to withdraw from the war. Japan wasn't stupid? Japan was absolutely idiotic ever since it decided to attack the USA. Remember, it is Japan who made the Americans to officially join the war, and basically you asked for those atomic bombs. Stop trying to use the communist party as your excuse for not apologising over your war crimes. You arrogant bastard think Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore are all under the communist ruling? You owe the entire Asia an apology. Your argument is identical to User:Sesloan, and your writing styles are the same. What a pathetic attempt Sesloan! Bobbybuilder 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

hahaha. bobby builder is calling names and accusing people of being other people. i didnt kill anyone bobby builder...why dont you understand that? do you dislike me or something?--Flipside03 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself. You want to find excuse for your government then the least you can do is have the spine to take the criticism. I dislike ignorant and uneducated people in general. You unfortunately fall into that category. This is an encyclopaedia, why don't you learn something from it first. Bobbybuilder 10:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

there's a big difference in taking criticism and taking blame. yah okay, and you're not repeating yourself at all. ill personally send koizumi to apologize to you. --Flipside03 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You knew already that talking like an idiot serves you no good. Bobbybuilder 09:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

please bob, the only person talking nonsense is yourself...the great...BOBBY BUILDER. Flipside03 09:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's enough Sesloan and Bobkins cut it out. Phonemonkey 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I leave and come back, and it seems lots of discussion happened, and yet, everyone ignored the main point: A relatively recent Japanese documentary was revised. Nice way to side-step that. Should I help you sweep things under the carpet? Right-wing nationalists can argue until they're blue in the face, the fact is, denial happens often, and the differences between the way the Germans and the Japanese handled post-war responsibility is immensely different. Moogleii 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the way the Germans and Japanese have gone about facing for the wartime crimes have been vastly different, and for that I think the Japanese have little excuse.

As much as we asians understand the concepts of saving face, I wonder if all this skirting around the issue will end up leading Japan into ruin again, for those who deny history will be cursed to repeat it. Already radical right wing sentiments are making inroads into the Japanese mindset and I wonder if this is helped by the corner-cutting Japan has gone about in facing up to its wartime past.

It's not enough to make "technical" apologies to save face, repeat that and refer to the long list of slipshod "remorses" as proof enough has been done. Economic aid and all that stuff needs to come along with some rather explict statements of redress or else we won't see an end to this.

Rexregum 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal apologies from PMs versus an official apology from the state

An important detail I would like point out: Many people are ignorant of the difference between an official state-level apology and the personal apologies by the Prime Ministers (or other ministers.) Japan has NEVER offered an official, national-level apology to China or the Chinese people for the war crimes committed in WWII. All the apologies were considered PERSONAL made by Prime Ministers and other ministers. None of them were an official state-level apology.

In Japan, there have been numerous attempts for a resolution to issue an official state-level apology to China and the Chinese people for WWII. However, all the apology resolutions had been repeatedly voted or toned down the Japanese Diet (= Japanese parliament.) In the end, the resolutions always have the word "apology" taken out in the final approved version. So, an actual state-level apology, which is considered as the only real sincere apology from the whole Japan as a nation, has never been approved by the Diet. You can look that up yourself.

So, the fact is this: Japan as a state has NEVER officially apologized for their war atrocities in China. I think the article is quite heavily biased in favor of Japan without noting that very crucial detail. It is a very serious omission, considering the article title is: "List of war apology statements issued by JAPAN", not "List of war apology statements issued by INDIVIDUAL JAPANESE POLITICIANS". While many Japanese politicians have offer war apologies, Japan has not. (I am talking about the official position of Japan as a nation.) There is a very important distinction. So, the article title can be considered as misleading. ktchong 5 August 2006

The "fact" is that the Japanese prime ministers have issued numerous official apologies in their official capacity in the past couple of decades as listed in this article, and the personal-apology-doesn't-count bullshit is so 10 years ago that no educated person would buy into that nowadays. --222.3.78.184 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's so then why you are here arguing the validity of those so-called arguments? If you want to pretend you are someone else, next time try to use a different way to argue and not a different user name, stupid little monkey. Bobbybuilder 01:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, repeated attempts to pass a resolution to offer a state-level apology had been rejected, over and over again, by the Japanese Diet. That fact by itself is an important reflection of the social and political reality in Japan. Apologies, personal or official, from the Prime Ministers of Japan carried weight, but certainly not as much as an apology endorsed and approved by the Diet to represent Japan's national position. The fact that none of the war apology resolution was officially endorsed or approved by the Diet is an important detail that deserves to be mentioned in the main article. ktchong 6 August 2006

Seems like Bobkins is concerned that some anonymous user may actually be me. Actually I can look after myself under my own username, but thanks for your concern Bobkins. (You're probably right about Sesloan though.) But that's beside the point - at least there's someone here, ktchong, who may (or may not) differ in opinion to me, but seems to have an ability for logical discussion which you obviously haven't picked up yet. So instead of jumping back into your childish slanging match (using a racist term really didn't do your credibility much good did it Bobkins?) I shall be replying to the issues raised by ktchong in the meantime, as his/her comments are actually relevant to the main article. Phonemonkey 02:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Another irrelevant comments from Phonemonkey, well done. Bobbybuilder 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, little Bobkins (was it you insulting other people's english skills earlier?) Anyway, back to Wikipedia...in response to ktchong: I see your point about this article coming across as biased in favour of Japan - or to put it more accurately, biased in favour of the Japanese right. The heading is certainly POV.

The all-important 1995 Diet resolution was a carefully crafted statement to try to strike a delicate balance between lefties (who wanted a stronger apology) and righties (who wanted it toned down), and while I applaud the Japanese cabinet at that time for getting this through the Diet, the lack of the exact word "apology" in this particular resolution is indeed a crucial detail. (Just to clarify, I must point out that a significant proportion of lawmakers who voted against or abstained from the motion did so because they felt that the wording of the apology is not strong enough).

Now whether or not this fact deserves to be explicitly mentioned in the main article I am not sure about, as I believe a list of political statements like this should remain exactly that - a list of statements, put across to readers without any additional commentary.

Which leads me on to the heading of the article, which, as ktchong points out, implies that this is a list of apologies issued officially by Japan as a whole. They are all official (as the ones listed here were issued officially by representatives of the Japanese government, not random lawmakers making private comments), but only to varying degrees, and the clarity of "apologies" is also a matter of debate in many cases. The heading is biased because it ignores these delicate issues. Unfortunately I can't think of a more neutral heading without making it sound awkward and unnatural. Any suggestions? Phonemonkey 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the word "apology" is a tricky issue since everyone defines "apology" differently. However, might I suggest we keep the title as-is? Granted, some people might be upset at using such a strong word, but besides being 100% correct, the title serves a second purpose of allowing people to find this page. I typed in "apology Japan wikipedia" into Google and found it immediately. If you change the word "apology" to something that is more agreeable to everyone, you might end up with a more correct page, that no one can find!--Rayjapan 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

An important article to have, and written very neutrally and thoroughly. This is all that is needed, I think, for the most part. Let the facts speak for themselves. LordAmeth 08:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second this comment. I think the only thing that I want to add to this long discussion is that everything was originally said in Japanese. Even if a professional translator is used, there are some nuances that can never be accurately translated. As an English-speaker learning Japanese, I can say that some things are sometimes not said and all parties just "know" what was left out. As I'm still learning the language, I can't say I've learned this skill yet. Also, I think it is good that the original statements were in Japanese since someone using a foreign language can't get it correct either. Does this page exist on Wikipedia Japan? If so, perhaps we can link to it so that anyone who wants the full story can go further and see the original statements in Japanese? --Rayjapan 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think there's already a link to the Japanese article. Totally agree with your point about translation, carefully calibrated statements like these can never be translated with total accuracy. Phonemonkey 14:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to be balanced, there should be an article listing denials. Maybe I'll start one later, unless there are some unbiased individuals here that will rise up to the challenge.

We can start with this one: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/02/news/japan.php Moogleii 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article have a Korean version?

Hmm. 137.22.3.170 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to translate it?  :-) Korea (and Koreans) are definitely involved but I think it has to do with no one who is bi/tri-lingual is willing to translate it; and not some kind of conspiracy theory which I hope your "Hmm." is not implying... Rayjapan 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder what you could be implying. So how's Occidentalism these days? Still as racist as ever?--24.22.233.21 (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time I tried translating an article for the Korean wiki, I received a very stern warning from a head administrator about not writing at the level one would expect from an encyclopedia. He said that it'd be easier to start from scratch than to go with my translation. My korean is not native level, but I am intermediate-advanced level. I'm afraid to try to translate anything again for them. :( FFLaguna (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting a past apology is not a new apology

Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto comments on August 28, 1997 were a quotation of an apology by a former Prime Minister. He then agrees with the sentiment of this apology. His other comments are forward-looking. Quoting an apology and agreeing with it is not an apology under any definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.229 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is sloppy, removed an entry for August 17, 2000 by Spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Ryuichiro Yamazaki. His statement is literally only a list of apologies formerly made by Japan. There were no new statements of apologies made on 2000 August 17. Not to mention, of course, that he is a spokesman and not in any position to issue an apology for Japan, even if he were to attempt one.

Please save commentary on apologies for a separate section, rather than treating them as new apologies.

The entry for January 16, 1998 was an interview with a spokesman regarding apologies made on January 13th. It is verbose and concerns commentary and clarification on the previous apology and does not belong in the "list of apologies" section. If important, let's make it more concise and place this into a commentary section. Reading it through, it doesn't add anything more than background information and comments on their general philosophy towards apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.229 (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've created a new section for 'Comments Clarifying Past Apologies'. This is for official statements which add strong context and clarification to the scope or meaning previous apologies. For example, many Prime Ministers have reiterated that a specific apology was the official position of Japan. Other comments include clarifying who is covered by a particular apology. The list of apologies list many of these comments as "new apologies", which is confusing, spammy, and wrong. An interview that happened to be published 3 days after an apology gets listed as an apology for Japan. Please separate these into the commentary section, and list them only if they are significant enough to change the context of a previous apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.229 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Controvery section

I made edits to clean up the opening paragraph which lacked citations and turned it into a summary of controversies listed. Some edits were grammatical or to improve readability. The citation for Ozawa Ichiro must be out of date because it has nothing remotely to do with the quote, let alone contain the quote. Hopefully someone can re-add the relevant citation. Also, the quote was actually hidden from the article inside the citation itself, while a poorly worded and very POV substitute stood in its place when the quotation by itself does a far better job of explaining itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.229 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

1970s background and history

For the second time, I've removed all of that information. It's bad for two reasons. First, much of it was unsourced (all of the background), or badly sourced (wikiquote, like all open wikis, are not reliable sources). But even if all of it were validly sourced and coherently written, it still would not be acceptable for this article. This article is, as described in the title itself, nothing other than a List of war apology statements from Japan. While a sentence or two of context within the paragraph of an example would be acceptable, we are not going to make a whole section to describe the background for any given apology. Perhaps that information could go into another article (though my guess is that it's probably too detailed for most encyclopedia articles), but it definitely doesn't belong here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This article seems to have been written in a very biased way. For example, there is a sentence about an apology by Murayama, then something about Iris Chang's reaction, and so on and so on, always with each apology followed by the complaint. If this is meant to be a list, why does it contain these kinds of things? Again, here it says "In 2010, one comfort woman from Taiwan stated," so instead of being a list of apologies, it has turned into a list of complaints. Surely these issues should be dealt with in another article? Also, the article is very badly written. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So far nobody has responded to this. As a first step, I am moving the "Controversy" section from the top to the bottom of the article, and removing the uncited quote. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference problems

The references in this article, while comprehensive-looking, suffer from a number of problems. The first is that many of them are to "personal home page" on Geocities-like sites, which isn't appropriate. Another problem is the use of Google translate as a link source. The Wikipedia policy allows references in foreign languages, and the Google translate is unlikely to do much of a job of translating these complex documents correctly, so it is necessary to remove them and replace with the original page. Also these "personal home page" links are not reliable sources of course. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology Rebuffed quote

In the Apology Rebuffed section it says this: "Many years later, Tierney made an effort to explain his understanding of the significance of what he claimed he had personally witnessed: "Apology is a very important thing in Japan. [...] It was the rudest, crudest, most uncalled for thing I have ever witnessed in my life."[2] Whether true or not - issues which might have been addressed were allowed to remain open, and unanticipated consequences have unfolded across the decades since then.[4][5]" I'm concerned that the way the quote is laid out there with the ellipsis placed where it is, it makes it easily misinterpreted. This can be misread as implying that the Japanese were in some way rude and crude, when Tierney was referring to MacArthur. Can someone expand on the quote a bit so that it's crystal clear what exactly was implied? Centerone (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)