Talk:Military history of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

The article contains the text, "Near the end of Jomon period, villages and towns became surrounded by moats and wooden fences. Some remains were found with head and arrow injuries. Battles were fought with weapons like sword, sling, spear, and bow and arrow."

Is "sword" correct? I thought Jomon people did not work metals, and that swords came in with the Yayoi.

Fg2 07:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Contents

[edit] Military Bases...

It says here that most of the US military bases in Japan are in Okinawa... I don't really know whether or not that's true - it might be - but Okinawa's a relatively small place, and if we have bases in Yokohama, Roppongi, and near Mt Fuji, that's already three not on Okinawa; I wonder how many there are in Okinawa, to make it 'most of US bases'... just a minor quibble, that's all. LordAmeth 12:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See United States Forces Japan for a list. Fg2 21:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

That said, however, it should be noted that Japan is no longer the militaristic power it was 60 years ago. Japan has deployed the Jieitai to aid in a number of defensive missions, especially those involving humanitarian aid, such as aiding the victims of the 1995 Kobe earthquake, and, currently, helping to rebuild Iraq. They wish to have their own military because they fear the growing power of China, and the hostility of North Korea, which has conducted various terrorist activities over the course of the last several decades and is now explicitly threatening nuclear attack. It has been claimed that the United States has failed to properly address these issues, and so Japan seeks to grant itself the power to defend itself. In addition, Kofi Annan recently announced a planned expansion of the number of permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, and Japan seeks to gain one of these positions. Despite their economic power and political influence, it is debateable whether or not a country with no standing military can be considered a 'world power,' enough so to be granted a permanent seat on the UNSC. Recent territorial disputes have complicated this process, however.

I feel the bolded parts are very POV, however I can't think of a way to NPOV-ize it, help?

  • it should be noted that Japan is no longer the militaristic power it was 60 years ago - Many in China and Korea as well as SE Asia would beg to differ.
  • They wish to have their own military because they fear the growing power of China, and the hostility of North Korea, which has conducted various terrorist activities over the course of the last several decades and is now explicitly threatening nuclear attack - This put China and NKorea under bad light based on personal opinion.
  • United States has failed to properly address these issues, and so Japan seeks to grant itself the power to defend itself - Whether the US has failed should not have anything to do with Japan's military.
  • it should be noted that Japan is no longer the militaristic power it was 60 years ago - This is plain old fact. Those in China and Korea who dislike Japan have no instances of attack, invasion, or terrorism to point to after WWII. Regardless of whether or not they wish to believe it, Japan has changed. Any Japanese modern history book written outside of East Asia will confirm that; their culture regarding war has changed drastically, and their political attitudes have as well. They have taken no militaristic or imperialistic action whatsoever within the last 60 years.
  • They wish to have their own military because they fear the growing power of China, and the hostility of North Korea, which has conducted various terrorist activities over the course of the last several decades and is now explicitly threatening nuclear attack - also fact. I am not trying to imply anything, I am not trying to put them under a 'bad light'. North Korea has kidnapped a number of Japanese, placed bombs on their commercial flights, and threatened Japan with nuclear weapons.
  • United States has failed to properly address these issues, and so Japan seeks to grant itself the power to defend itself - Whether the US has failed should not have anything to do with Japan's military. - Actually, what the US does military regarding Japan does matter, because the US is charged with defending Japan. It's why we have so many military bases there. It's in their Constitution, Article 9, that Japan does not have a military and so must rely on the US for defense.
I am simply stating the facts. This is not a place for editorializing or soapboxing, and so I am not elaborating for pages on my thoughts on the matter. Just the facts. And sometimes the facts are unpleasant, but these are issues that are currently facing Japan militarily, and thus they are important to include. LordAmeth 10:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • it should be noted that Japan is no longer the militaristic power it was 60 years ago - This the what the Japanese government claims as fact. Even though Japan has not invaded any nation after WW2, that alone does not suffice for removal from the 'militarist nations' list. Neither has Nazi Germany invaded anyone, before 1939, and their belligerence was apparent long before that. Even the Spanish Civil War could be compared to Iraq. I really hate to draw analogies between Japan and Nazi Germany again, but that's how it is. The mere fact that Japan is re-arming is makes people wonder if Japan is turning militarist again. It is POV to flatly deny this.
  • They wish to have their own military because they fear the growing power of China, and the hostility of North Korea, which has conducted various terrorist activities over the course of the last several decades and is now explicitly threatening nuclear attack - I believe you are not trying to imply anything, however that's the idea that I get from that line. It would be good if we can change it to something that everyone would be comfortable with.
  • United States has failed to properly address these issues, and so Japan seeks to grant itself the power to defend itself - The US still maintains bases in Japan, and these bases have not failed in anyway, what is happening in Iraq or elsewhere has nothing to do with Japan's military.
Look, I'm not trying to accuse you of 'whitewashing history' of anything, just that even though you might not notice it, the tone you're taking seems accusative of other countries and POV. I'm only trying to change the facts laced with opinion to facts without opinion. -Hmib 16:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I understand; I'm not accusing you of accusing me of whitewashing or anything... I just don't know how to say any of it better. East Asian politics is a touchy situation, and a number of writers have said that it is difficult to be neither pro-Japan nor anti-Japan while discussing its politics. LordAmeth 22:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
How about this.
  • it should be noted that Japan is no longer the militaristic power it was 60 years ago change to That said, however, it should be noted that the Japanese government claims it is no longer the militarist power it was 60 years ago.
  • I don't think NKorea has ever made it clear they are planning an attack on Japan or USA? So I believe we should leave that out, unless they did indeed announce their plan to attack.
  • Can't think of a good sentence to replace the United States has failed to properly address these issues, and so Japan seeks to grant itself the power to defend itself.
Ok, go ahead and change it on the first one. For the second and third, we can leave out "Korea explicitly threatened to attack, and change it to They wish to have their own military because they fear the growing power of China and the hostility of North Korea. I keep trying to come up with a less accusatory way of saying that the United States has failed to properly address these issues, but I cannot seem to find the words; everything I come up with sounds more accusatory. Maybe something like "Since North Korea has announced its possession of nuclear weapons, the United States has not taken significant steps to ensure the security of Japan against this potential threat, and so many Japanese wish to be able to defend themselves." LordAmeth 13:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it necessary to reword the statement: "It has been claimed that the United States has failed to properly address these issues, and so Japan seeks to grant itself the power to defend itself" to be less accusatory if that is in fact what the Japanese government is accusing them of? As long as it is clear that WP is not the one doing the accusing then I don't see this as POV. If the statement is that "It has been claimed..." then isn't the important part whether or not the claim is referenced and not whether the claim is actually valid? Colincbn 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unique, except not unique?

"However, Japan's military history is somewhat unique in that, unless one counts the American Occupation following World War II, Japan has never been successfully invaded." While rare for Asian countries, Thai boasts a similar claim of being independent throughout its existance. Perhaps more countries are like Japan in this aspect as well. --MangoCurry 22:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and edited.--Sir Edgar 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Being independent is not the same as never being invaded. Name me one country that has never been invaded... LordAmeth 10:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


"Unless one counts the American Occupation following World War II, the Japanese main islands have never been successfully invaded."

Could someone delete this nonsensical line from the page primer? Anyone with half a wit can see it has a serious logic flaw (or an axe to grind). Then again, this is Wikipedia, so maybe it belongs here.

-Rykehaven

Sure, anyone can - be bold. My guess, though, is that it's just a poorly worded. The writer probably meant something more like, "The Japanese main islands have never been successfully invaded, though American forces occupied Japan as a condition of surrender following World War II." Thus, not strictly an invasion, though my interpretation might not be right either. Cmprince 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oei Invasion

The Koreans retreated from Tsushima? According to other some websites cited in Yi Jong Mu and Tsushima Island, the Koreans had political influence over Tsushima in the years that followed after 1419. In this website [1], Tsushima's natives were portrayed kowtowing to general Yi. Certainly this is contradicting. Mr Tan 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I have labeled this article to be of Top importance, because I think that Japan is a fairly popular country to study, and a fairly important one throughout history. The overall military history of Japan may not be quite as important and interesting to the everyman as, say World War II, but I think it's up there. Most if not all "Military history of foo" mainline articles should be Top, I think. LordAmeth 11:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sengoku?

I cannot believe I did not notice this earlier. Why is the Sengoku period completely absent from this article? The Nanboku-chō wars which saw the fall of the Kamakura shogunate and the rise of the Ashikaga shogunate, and which lasted on and off for over fifty years are not mentioned at all, nor are the Onin War or the great many tactical and strategic developments and events of the Sengoku period.

I wish we could simply cut and paste the entire "History" section of the Samurai article into here - it's thorough, well-written, and nearly all of it quite relevant to this subject. I might not get to it today, but this definitely needs to be addressed. LordAmeth 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done quite a bit for the pre-modern sections, and have added a few crucial elements to the post-war section as well. I hope to come back with citations for my post-war assertions within a few days. LordAmeth 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused About Terminology

I am not sure what is meant by the term "Standing military" in the section "post WWII". The opening statements seem to imply that Japan has had a continuous force that operates both internally and overseas yet later claims Japan has no standing military. I know that according to the constitution of Japan the S.D.F. is prohibited from invading other countries (yet is allowed to enter foreign territory for the purpose of defending allies), but I don't see why that would be the determining factor. A more clear definition of what is the usual requirement for a force to be considered a "Standing Military" would most likely clear this up. Also since Japan had soldiers in Iraq as part of the coalition I was hoping for a bit of information about that (If I have the time I will try to find it myself and add it here, assuming there are no objections). Colincbn 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked more deeply into this matter I can see it is much more complicated than simple terminology. From an uninformed outside perspective it seems to me that the jietai is in fact a standing army, but the 9th article of the Japanese constitution prohibits the country from having one. So what is the legal basis for this force according to the Japanese government? I assume it considers the jietai as a kind of police force and therefore not in violation, but as I am almost completely ignorant on this issue I really can't say. If I come across any material on this subject would it be appropriate to include it here, or is that beyond the scope of this article? Colincbn 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance to Japanese Invasion of Taiwan (1895)

I have been working on this article and all the subsequent articles. However, I cannot read or write Japanese, and I would like someone to help me in these articles so we can present both the Japanese and Taiwanese perspective of this event. Thanks. Kc0616 11:23, 16 July 2007