Talk:Occupation of Japan

[Untitled]

Daily Telegraph of Sydney (Sep 2. 2005): "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Occupied--Japan Be wary of the "facts" but this is a good overview, with pictures and links to documents."

Culture

The novels and short stories written during this time have a special name because of its unique characteristics. Not sure what (name & characteristics) though. --Menchi 04:34 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have heard 戦後文学 ("postwar literature") used to refer to the literature of this time. As far as characteristics go, the Allies actively censored literature that seemed to be anti-American or anti-Occupation, so many literary works had to express their political viewpoints in subtle ways, and some topics (like the atomic bomb) were flat out forbidden. Anybody else know something about this? -- Sekicho 12:33, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Likely copyvio

The large amount of text recently added (2005 Mar 12) by Revolutionary appears to be very similar to http://www.crystalinks.com/japan11.html, so I've removed it on the assumption that it's probably a copyright violation. -- JTN 23:03, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Actually the text turns out to originally come from Britannica, so we almost certainly don't have permission to use it. (Which makes the crystalinks page a copyvio of its own, but not our problem.) -- JTN 23:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Resistance

Where there any armed resistance or insurgency?

--Duemellon 13:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No -- and if the article doesn't make this and the reasons behind it clear, it needs some revisions. I'll see what I can do. --Ambyr 13:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Those in the armed forces that were most opposed to the peace treaty commited suicide shortly after the Emperor annouced their surrender. The Japanese honor code said that if you surrendered, you were disgraced, but also it also said you had to follow the emperor. There should be several books on this. Joncnunn 13:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Imminent communist revolution?

Does anyone have any kind of source whatsoever for the article's claim that trade unions were on the verge of instigating a full communist revolution, but all backed off because of MacArthur's fighting words? This sounds a lot more like wishful thinking. MrVoluntarist 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been long enough. I removed it, but saved the text in a comment. Will re-insert when there's enough substantiation. MrVoluntarist 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

I feel bad to give a Start assessment to such a long article, with so many pictures, and which, it is obvious, quite a bit of work has gone into. But the Occupation is such an incredibly major event, not only militarily, but also politically, economically, and culturally, there is a lot more to be said here. Particularly since I have heard recently of some scholarly texts and articles which take a rather contrary view on the Occupation, asserting that it was not as selflessly benevolent, as organized, or as positive as we all are taught it was. I am afraid I do not have the names of these sources, let alone the texts themselves, but I will look into it.

The jist was that the US didn't really have some magical knowledge of exactly how to handle the Japanese Occupation perfectly. The Showa Constitution and other laws put into place by the Occupation government were extremely strict, and were essentially knee-jerk reactions to the causes of the rise of militarism and outbreak of the war, with little concern or understanding for how a peaceful, productive nation could survive and develop under this system. Also, as the Cold War began to emerge shortly after WWII, the US apparently made an about-face in their treatment of the Japanese military. We disarmed them, wrote into their constitution a provision against having a military, and then turned right around and asked for their help in the Korean War and in the Cold War in general. I do apologize again that I do not have these sources on me, and am essentially just recounting my memories of a conversation with a friend. But suffice it to say, this is the kind of topic that entire books have been written on. This article is an excellent start, as it stands right now, but there is much much more to be written. LordAmeth 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. approved the measure on the removal of a military force, but the MacArthur administration did not initiate it - that came from a Japanese newly-elected official. This is shown in the article.50.111.19.178 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Negative Occupation

Everyone seems to think that America's occupation of Japan was good on both sides, but this is not true. When the American soilders occupied Japan, women who were once mothers, wives, artists, were forced by the soilders into prostitution. Many of them were sexually abused. The Americans took cultural buildings, such as traditional theatres, and turned them into dance halls, in attepmts to evaporate Japanese culture. And let us not forget the isolation camps back in America, isolationg anyone who looked Japanese.

"*And there were also internment camps for those of German and Italian descent." Is this correct? 128.113.146.158 01:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I echo the opinion below that this is pretty unfounded and sounds ignorant and reactionary. I lived and taught in Kokura, which was on the a-bomb target list, and had older students who remembered the occupation. One older woman spoke with some very positive memories about her own family's encounters with American soldiers. I'm sure there were negative experiences as well, but I tend to believe that the average interactions between American soldiers and Japanese citizens were, at least, professional. Also, prostitution is called the 'oldest profession' for a reason. Its unniversal, and has occurred in every place and every part of history. That there might have been an increase during post-war occupation (do you have any evidence of this?) is possible, but is there any reason to say its a result of anything more than supply reacting to increasing demand? Its also kind of funny to blame the American military for 'forced prostitution', without evidence, when there is a LARGE body of that exact behavior in evidence by the Japanese.

To add to the above comment, and in relation to the first one, the Japanese internment camps were NOT for everybody "who looked Japanese." Japanese descent was determined. Koreans, Filipinos, Chinese, and other Asians were not put into such camps, unless they also had some other descent* (such as Japanese). Furthermore, it was primarily for those of Japanese descent in the WESTERN part of the country. Japanese descendants in the east were often able to stay where they were; Japanese descendants in the west of the country also had to option of freely moving to the eastern part of the country, but would have to find new work and new homes--the internment camps were free. *And there were also internment camps for those of German and Italian descent. Obviously, this was primarily for those who were immigrants and their young children--otherwise a huge portion of the American population would have been interned. Chiss Boy 11:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems quite obvious to me that this article is lacking a neutral point of view. At least in the forced prostitution issue, since the subject is in the news right now, something should be done. 207.126.230.225 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

"Japanese descendants in the west of the country also had to option of freely moving" - This statement is entirely false. It's why it was called a "forced relocation", with the word "forced" being quite key. These concentration camps were most definately not any sort of wonderful summer camp that they elected to "enjoy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.26.147 (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

If internment camps were relevant to a discussion of the Allied Occupation of Japan, what you write would matter. But it isn't, so it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"In a bid to occupy as much Japanese territory as possible, Soviet troops continued offensive military operations after the Japanese surrender, causing large scale civilian casualties." I see no point in this; this is reffering to combat operations in Manchuria and Korea- parts of Japan's empire, but not Japan itself. Otherwise, US landings at Inchon in southern Korea should be included in this section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.19.170 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance

If I were a Japanese female I would be extremely offended by the above paragraph (Negative Occupation).

The claim to know what "Everyone" thinks is very conceited. Since most women fall into one of the categories listed above, the writer has insulted the entire nation of Japan by stating that the current population is, or is decended from, prostitutes.

As for Japanese culture, it is alive and well. Imagine what it would have been like under Communism.

If the writer believes that Japan was better off in 1940 than it is today, tell that to all the Japanese woman that now have the right to vote. Tell that to Japanese women that have become engineers and politicians, making Japan one of the most powerful nations in the world -- all without the use of arms.

I don't think he was saying all women were prostitutes, but that average women were in situations where they had to do it. That's not unusual during an occupation. Look at what happens in other countries with extreme poverty and a lot of servicemen around. Also, I don't see what communism has to do with anything. 66.245.195.30 12:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I rest my case.

If you are the writer of the previous section, your case isn't very strong. Chiss Boy 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In face of the recent news, it seems obvious that author has very strong case, indeed. 207.126.230.225.

Which Flag?

The article has the current flag of Japan (which is the same flag of the former Empire of Japan) as being the flag of occupied Japan, but didn't the Allies ban the Japanese flag throughout the occupation (similar to their ban on German symbols throught the occupation of Germany)? In Germany they provided for a modified C-pennant as a provisional civil ensign (see: Allied Occupation Zones in Germany and Flag of Germany). Wasn't there a similar ensign for Japan (a simple blue above red swallow-tailed ensign if I remember correctly)?72.27.77.144 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The flag should be changed to this one [1] from [2]. I'll try to find a place to to make flag requests for someone to create an SVG version. --Scott Alter 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Legacy, a POV section

The "Legacy" section of this article is simply a naive non-neutral consideration. It dismiss all the activities of the founders of the LDP and their links to the surviving showa regime leaders and "behind the scene" activists such as Yoshio Kodama. It also omit the work done bu the American Central Intelligence Agency against the Socialists and Communists. All the section should be reworded. --Flying tiger 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly an overly simplified, grade-school level assessment of the situation. Also, if this section gets rewritten, it would definitely be worthwhile to highlight notable changes in policy that occurred as part of the "Reverse Course" in reaction to the start of the Cold War. --Julian Grybowski 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rapes of occupation forces

I had read on a few books. The books was about rapes in the World War II of japanese and russian soldiers. The american and australian soldiers was engaged in the masse rape of Japansese woman in the first years and was the worst example of masse rape committed of allied soldiers from the West in the World War II. On August 30, 1945 two marines went into a civilian house in Yokosuka and raped a mother and daughter. The marines was in MacArthur`s bodyguard as had landed only three hours earlier. In only two days was 11 rapes reported, one woman was gang-raped of 27 american soldies. On September 10 was 1.336 rapes reported. A BIG deal of the U.S. forces rape many japanese womans.

70.000 womans "work" for the organization Recreation and Amusement Association as prostitutes in only a half year. Many was forced as sex-slaves.

How about reading credible history, and not this fantastic (as in fantasy) gobbledeegoop? Chiss Boy 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your statements. When discussing anything in talk pages...... especially with some form of opinions. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. The message is for the person who made the first post. Benjwong 05:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These exact numbers the first poster detailed come from the book "Hidden Horrors" by Yuki Tanaka, 1996. It's dedicated almost entirely to war crimes committed /by/ the Japanese, and is far from fantasy gobbledeegoop.Msoftceo 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the U.S. attitude to the Japanses during the war, I would not be at all surprised if they later took some liberties with what they probably saw as "sub-human" women. Referenced from "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11

There is evidence that "take no prisoners" became policy amongst American troops in the Pacific theater. At the battle for Okinawa 75,000 Japanese soldiers died, while less than 7,500 were taken prisoner. In 1943 it was noted in a secret intelligence report that "only the promise of ice cream and three days' leave would suffice to induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese." U.S. troops often regarded the Japanese as sub-human, in much the same way as the Germans regarded the Soviets, leading to similar atrocities.

It was not uncommon for soldiers to boil the flesh off Japanese skulls and send them home as souvenirs to their sweethearts. In May 1944 Life Magazine published a picture of such a souvenir, gazed on by a doting girlfriend. Bearing the autograph of her boyfriend and his friends, it was also inscribed with "...'This is a good Jap – a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.’ Natalie, surprised at the gift, named it Tojo."

Out of 9,100,000 mobilized Japanese troops, only 42,543 were officially recorded as POWs prior to the Japanese capitulation. Killing of prisoners became so common that War psychologist had to device formula for how to treat later feelings of guilt amongst soldiers. According to the war correspondent Edgar L. Jones; "We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats . . . finished off the enemy wounded."--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/25/comfort.women.ap/index.html Msoftceo 14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Go on Chris Boy, open deleted now. deleted. America was able to transform Japan by force. This same force was used in South Korea. It failed in Vietnam and it is failing in Iraq. America attempting to culturally invade other nations' cultures is not working any longer. The world is a smaller place, with TV/Internet and media. It is no longer possible for American soldiers to walk into a Japanese woman's house, S.Korean's house or Iraqi's house and rape their women without it being front page news. This is why the US will not be able to create a modern democracy(their fucked up version) in any country in the world. People are aware now, god knows how the Japanese can forgive the Americans for the atomic bombs. Deleted

Some more links.

• • She named the love gift Tojo from LIFE magazine, 5/22/44 p.35 "Picture of the Week".
  • American troops murdered Japanese PoWs

“ A History of Sexual Violence in Okinawa by U.S. Servicemen. Although formal U.S. occupation ended in 1952, Okinawa remained under U.S. military authority until 1972, when the island reverted to Japanese rule. The United States and Japan signed a SOFA in 1960 to establish, among other things, the jurisdictional boundaries applying to U.S. military personnel on the island. This relationship between the U.S. military and the local populace of Okinawa is marred with hundreds of allegations of sexual crimes. Okinawan police reports from 1945 to 1950, for example, reveal 278 reported rapes by U.S. servicemen, including the rape of a nine month old girl in 1949. Similarly, in 1955, local records indicate that a U.S. serviceman kidnapped, raped, and murdered a six year old Okinawa girl.

With the reversion of Okinawa to Japan in 1972, local authorities gained more authority to address problems caused by the U.S. military, but acts of sexual violence persisted nonetheless. A local human rights group, Okinawan Women Act Against Military Violence, cite Okinawan police records that report U.S. military personnel raped 200 Okinawan women between 1972 and 1997. This number, however, is likely to be artificially low not only because of the difficulty and uncertainty of criminal justice processes, but also because of the historical under-reporting of sex crimes.

”

• • Bodies of WWII Marines killed for rapes found in Okinawa
  • 3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa
  • One War Is Enough, by EDGAR L. JONES published in the February 1946 issue of the Atlantic Monthly

“ We Americans have the dangerous tendency in our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter.

As victors we are privileged to try our defeated opponents for their crimes against humanity; but we should be realistic enough to appreciate that if we were on trial for breaking international laws, we should be found guilty on a dozen counts. We fought a dishonorable war, because morality had a low priority in battle. The tougher the fighting, the less room for decency, and in Pacific contests we saw mankind reach the blackest depths of bestiality.

”

• • The secret war And some U.S. activities in the west for balance.
  • "we too are considered an army of rapists"...
  • HNET review of "The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II". New York: New York University Press, 2002

“ The first form of fury is most often linked to the hatred American troops felt towards the Japanese. The following words from a lieutenant of the 11th Airborne Division to his mother illustrate vividly this point: "Nothing can describe the hate we feel for the Nips--the destruction, the torture, burning & death of countless civilians, the savage fight without purpose--to us they are dogs and rats--we love to kill them--to me and all of us killing Nips is the greatest sport known--it causes no sensation of killing a human being but we really get a kick out of hearing the bastards scream" (p. 207). This hatred heightened the dehumanization of the Japanese soldiers whether alive or already dead. Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated. "American soldiers on Okinawa were seen urinating into the gaping mouth of the slain. They were 'rebutchered.' 'As the bodies jerked and quivered,' a marine on Guadalcanal wrote of the repeated shooting of corpses, 'we would laugh gleefully and hysterically'" (p. 209). As the GIs closed in on the Japanese archipelago, the more the difference between combatants and noncombatants became fuzzy and almost pointless to them.

For instance, rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women. "The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000. A figure that does not seem unlikely when one realizes that during the first 10 days of the occupation of Japan there were 1,336 reported cases of rape of Japanese women by American soldiers in Kanagawa prefecture alone" (p. 212).

”

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Russians, dear friends and close Allies of the Americans, were not very nice people either... Roundup: Talking About History --Stor stark7 ^Talk 10:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess all this should make us wary of war. 218.186.11.235 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

@StorStark: You cite sources of 200 raped woman in more than 20 years in Okinawa and other incidents and actually compare these to the mass murder of tens of millions in Russia by Germany or in China by Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.121.250 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I don't care how late this comment it, the statements by StorStark are absolutely hilarious. The United States used force to transform Japan? Hmmmm, I wonder why that could be? Oh, that's right, the Japanese STARTED A WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Remind me again, which country raped and pillaged its way across Asia during World War II? Hint: It was Japan. I don't know who wrote the portion of the entry on rape, but it is permeated by StorStark's nonsense. It takes it as a given that the number of rapes by US personnel must be higher than the numbers recorded by the police. When it is pointed out that there is NO EVIDENCE OF THIS, we are told "Well, rape is an underreported crime". Sorry, but when you are writing a supposedly encyclopedic entry, that kind of weasel statement simply isn't good enough. You go by the historical sources, not by what you think the numbers are. The constant repeating of the "well the numbers are higher than was reported" refrain needs to be corrected, unless you can provide actual evidence to support your charges.

The title of this article seems wrong

Shouldn't it be "The Occupation of Japan" or "The Occupation of Japan by Allied Forces" User5802 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Compare with every article in Category:World War II occupied territories. The is always avoided. The forces which occupy do not seem to be always specified at the title. "Occupation of Japan" would be a reasonable rename but not all that different from the current title User:Dimadick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation of Japan" is, however, the far more common term, at least in my experience. LordAmeth 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Since no one else has suggested it, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that this be moved. I don't believe I've ever seen "Occupied Japan" used in a text with a capital "o", that is, as a proper noun. More common terms include "the Occupation", "the Occupation of Japan", "the Japanese Occupation" (though some confuse this for the Japanese occupation of various other territories such as China, Korea, Taiwan, Burma, etc), "the American Occupation", "the US Occupation of Japan", etc.

As can clearly be seen on the pages Japanese Occupation (a disambig), and Allied Occupation Zones in Germany, there is, contrary to Dimadick's assertion, no real consistent standard for avoiding naming the occupying power. Thus, I suppose, we could leave this open to further options. LordAmeth 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And your (LordAmeth's) choice would be "occupation of Japan"? I don't have any particular opinion on this matter (the current and suggested names both look unproblematic), but clearly we should follow some standard academic term. Google gives 156,000 hits for "occupation of Japan" and 351,000 for "occupied japan". But if "occupied japan" isn't a common term as the name of a chapter or book, then that should be avoided, as a general principle. -- Taku —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I am surprised to see so many Google hits for a capitalised "Occupied Japan", but even so, I feel that this is more of a descriptor, and that the title of the subject, if it were to be in a textbook chapter heading or the like as you suggest, would be "The Occupation", "The American Occupation", or "The Occupation of Japan." Thus, I do indeed suggest "Occupation of Japan" as the title here - the subject in question is not in any case Japan, but the Occupation as an event and as a period in Japanese history. LordAmeth 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I never claimed we have a consistent standard for avoiding naming the occupying power. I just noted we do not have a consistent standard for always naming the occupying power either. As far as I know this is the only period in its history where the whole of Japan is under foreign occupation. So the addition of "American" or "United States" would not serve a disambiguation purpose.

Like before I think "Occupation of Japan" is the most reasonable name if we do rename the article. "The Occupation" would create disambiguation problems with many other articles covering historic occupations and "The American Occupation" with various former administrations by Americal military presence. Dimadick 09:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm with you completely. Sorry for misinterpreting your prior statement. LordAmeth 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Page moved

I've moved the page, per the above discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that went through quickly and smoothly :) LordAmeth 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag

(I'm Japanese.So,I'm not english speaker.) Japanese flag is "Flag of Japan.svg" at any time. But "Flag of Allied Occupied Japan.svg" is not (Occupation of) Japanese flag. It is a merchant flag. So,I think to use here is unfit. And, Wikipedia Japanese version and Chinese version is using "Flag of Japan.svg" at Occupation of Japan page. --Heat5959 (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I also investigated on internet. This flag was a flag of SCAJAP (U.S. Naval Shipping Control Authority for Japanese Merchant Marine [3]) for Japanese marchant ships. [4], [5] Therefore, this flag should be called the Civil ensign rather than the National flag. It is inaccurate that this flag is indicated by the "Flag of Japan" column.--W/mint^-Talk- 14:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Allied Occupied Japan.svg

User:Kingj123, I think that your perception of the National flag is inaccurate.

1. This flag was not the "occupation flag", but "SCAJAP flag"[6] in order to Japanese civil ships. [7] Of course it was not the National flag.
2. SCAP(GHQ) never changed any flags. In 1945, GHQ ordered Japan that permission was necessary for the raising of the Sun-flag. Ministry of Education (Japanese).
3. The raising of the Sun-flag was permitted by SCAP Instructions (SCAPINs) as of 1949.Ministry of Education (Japanese).

If you want to change the image of National flag, please show me citation that the SCAP had changed Japanese National flag into this flag, otherwise evidence that the Sun-flag was not the Japanese National flag during occupied period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermint (talk • contribs) 11:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to know which flag was actually in use, but here is a website that lists simply as the "Allied occupation flag." --Scott Alter 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I was not able to find any description which this flag was the National flag of Japan. Anyway, I think we need more infomation about this flag. I'm going to ask WikiprojectJapan this issue. Please wait for a while. --W/mint^-Talk- 11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Watermint is right; the above flag is only a civilian ensign used on Japanese ships. Worldstatesmen has the information simplified, since they do not give in depth information about flags. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I also cannot find any evidence that the Sunrise flag was banned by SCAP.--Gettystein 07:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'm getting kinda tired of this flag business. I'll research it too. I know people weren't allowed to salute the flag, but haven't seen if it was changed. Will continue looking. Ling.Nut 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey y'all! That took two minutes! Found tons of evidence that the rising sun flag (Hinomaru) was banned by SCAP! Let's get some scholarship going here, 'kay? Will add to article later today. Ling.Nut 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Using the flag was banned severely restricted from 1945 to 1948; some restrictions lifted in 1948 and all lifted in 1949. Will add refs. Ling.Nut 09:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, was the above flag considered the flag of Japan, or only the flag of the Occupation (i.e. the Occupation Forces)? That's what is important. LordAmeth 11:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) No evidence the flag was replaced; just that flying it was severely restricted. This is a classic case of "it's hard to prove something didn't happen." If it wasn't replaced, then no one would note something that didn't happen. Ling.Nut 11:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After january 1949 *anyone could raise it, any time.* Before that, raising it was restricted. There's no mention of it being replaced as the national flag.. because... note that sources in the late 1990's say that the flag was not at that time and at no previous time the official flag of Japan. There was no official flag. I dunno if it has been made the official flag since then.. seems doubtful 'cause it would show up all over the Internet. Still looking. Ling.Nut 12:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yuk! Check that. OK. The Hinomaru was made the official flag in 1870, but that decision (and all others of the "Council of State") was abolished in 1885. Much later — 1999, to be exact — the Hinomaru was again made the national flag. It was not the official national flag at any point from 1885 to 1999 however. Ling.Nut 12:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Occupation flag" is a naval ensign. However, there was no official national flag (see above for detailed explanation). The Hinomaru is "far less unofficial" than a naval ensign, however. In my opinion, either use the Hinomaru, or no flag at all. Ling.Nut 12:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the occupation flag, although it was not official. Nevertheless, Japanese sun-disc flag was illegal or banned or restricted. How can the sun-disc flag be the official flag of the occupation while it is "restricted" or banned from use?--Kingj123 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "no flag" is at least better than the Hinomaru, there was no "national" flag of Japan during allied occupation. --Kingj123 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no flag will be our best choice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I disagree. The Hinomaru was the de facto but not de jure flag of japan, even at the time of the Occupation. Plus it was never banned, see my lengthy discussion in the notes... Ling.Nut 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a note here -- Ling.Nut 06:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

While I was looking at your postings, I just feel, for right now, we should have "sin bandera" as our flag image until we agree on something. It doesn't matter to me if the Hinomaru is used at all, but I object to the use of the naval ensign as the flag image for the infobox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, tho still believe the Hinomau is best. The naval ensign should not even be an option. Ling.Nut 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I said :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I support to use the Hinomaru rather than blank, too. The Hinomaru became to the official national flag as from 1999. However, it had been used as same as the National flag customary till 1999. The naval ensign should not be placed the infobox. (but it might be written to the contents with an image.)--Gettystein 08:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not support Hinomaru because, it was banned and restricted from use. I makes very little sense to use Hinormaru in the info box and say in the text that it was restricted or banned from use. Indeed, the occupation flag was a naval ensign, nevertheless, Japan was an occupation of Allied Force, and there was no national flag at that point in time. Naval ensign is the best option if the "blank" is not the choice. Just like how Residential flag represented Korea during Japanese occupation, and United Nations flag represents Kosovo today... Kingj123 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I would choose to display nothing. Sometimes, nothing displayed might be the best solution. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'm wondering how much of this debate is colored by the political persuasion of some of the participants. I don't give a hang about Japanese politics; it just makes sense to go with the de facto (albeit not de jure) flag of Japan. Moreover, I can find academic references which support the idea that it was the de facto flag of Japan. Verifiability trumps... whatever those other arguments are called. ;-) Ling.Nut 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if politics is part of it, since I do not know much of the participants well. However, I just find it odd that just one image is causing this sort of issue. We should just use no image to make things easier on ourselves and the academics sort it out in their towers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong answer. I'm not concerned about the political partisans on Wikipedia, and I'm not really even concerned about the scholars in their towers (your phrase, not mine). I'm concerned about high school kids who will get the (completely mistaken!) impression that there was no flag at all at this time. Ling.Nut 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what flag we chose, people will complain. It would be just best, for right now, to use no image. I still don't know about the hinomaru's status during the war even after taking a peek at those links. I'll ask around and see what I come up with. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I found something. Starting in 1947, the Hinomaru was allowed to be flown, without restrictions, on the Diet, Imperial Palace, Prime Minister's residence and the Supreme Court building. With this, I am leaning towards using the Hinomaru as the flag icon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:It is only a request. There is no proof that Macarthur agreed to this request.

So the flag was restored starting from 1947. Kingj123 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The letter is showing thanks for the request being granted already. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good source. Is there any site that says "Hinomaru is the national flag of Japan?" That would certainly nail down the argument... Nevertheless, Japan was not allowed to fly Hiromaru before 1947. It is too bad how different organizations tell us different facts or "contradictions." For example, this site says that here is a website the "E" flag was used as the occupation flag. --Kingj123 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am using that Ministry of Education website for reference, but I need to see what is the difference between the 1931 failure of passing a flag bill to the 1859 edict. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is really hard to find a good reference because it is controversial and highly political as well. I am Korean and in Korean educational text books aproved by the government, it used Korean flag instead of Hiromaro for Japanese colony of Korea. --Kingj123 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And I am American, so any Japanese flag used during the war is the naval ensign. After the war, I don't see anything Japanese related at all until the 1980's, which is now back to the familiar Hinomaru. Anyways, about the 1931 law failure, the text is at WikiSource in Japanese. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how to translate a page into English? Kingj123 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, it might be a good idea to adress both flags in the text right now. --Kingj123 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK here's a summary, again:

1. The Hinomaru was made the official flag (some sources say, only in a limited sense) in 1870 by the Meiji governemnt.
2. HOWEVER, that rule (as well as many others) was abolished in 1885.
3. There was no de jure (that is, legal) official flag from 1885 until 1999.
4. However, the Hinomaru was the de facto (that is, in fact but not in law) official flag all throughout the years before and during Word War II. It was not the official flag according to any law. However, according to common usage, the Hinomaru was the "official" flag. I have found academic references to support this claim.
5. In the initial years the Occupation of Japan after WWII, use of the Hinomaru flag was severly restricted (but never toally banned) by MacArthur's SCAP.
   1. The restrictions were partially relaxed in 1948, and people were allowed to fly the flag on some special occasions.
   2. The restrictions were totally abandoned in 1949. Anyone could fly the flag any time, without permision.
6. During more recent years (I'm not sure of the exact decades in question) there was an ongoing political struggle/debate about whether the flag should be made legally official or not. Thee was a lot of pressure on schools to fly the flag (I think the pressure was from the Ministry of eductaion... can check on that). There were several lawsuits etc., and one school principal committed suicide. It was an important, protracted legal struggle.
7. In 1999 the Hinomaru was legally made the official flag of Japan (by the Diet). End of story. Ling.Nut 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I understood what you were saying the first time around about de facto and de jure. However, my question is the following: can you tell me which 1885 law canceled the order about the Hinomaru? I ask because when I read the 1999 law, it officially stated in the first sections of it (specifically 附 則 ) that this 1999 law cancels the order issued in 1870 with regards to the flag. That seems to be the only confusing thing for me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just a minute... Ling.Nut 05:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

“ In 1870 the [Hinomaru] was designated as the national flag by means of a 'declaration (fukoku) by the Council of State (Daijō-kan太政官). In 1871, however, the Council was reorganized and the legislative function entrusted to the Left Chamber (Sa-in). Finally in 1885 the Council was replaced by a modern cabinet, with the result that the Council's declarations were abolished. (Cripps 1996:77-78) ”

• Cripps, D. Flags and Fanfares: The Hinomaru Flag and the Kimigayo Anthem. In Goodman, Roger & Ian Neary, Case Studies on Human Rights in Japan. London:Routledge, 1996. Pages 76-108. ISBN 1873410352
• Ling.Nut 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• And it feels like the 1999 law still considered that 1870 act legit. Ling, I trust you very well, but I still need to wrap this around my head. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The flag's dimensions/specs were explicity set one way in 1870 and very explicitly changed to a new set of specs in 1999. Did the 1999 law invalidate making the Hinomaru the national flag (which had already been invalidated, in my opinion) or merely invalidate the 1870 dimensions and specs? Ling.Nut —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the SCAP directives below. Hinomaru was the national flag even during the occupation. I think it is nonsense for us to talk what the Japanese national flag was before 1999. Japanese language is the de facto official language of Japan. Hinomaru was similary the de facto national flag.--Mochi 11:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

SCAPINs

Here is the list of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Directives to the Japanese Government([8]). The Directives about the flag are as follows:

• 1946/10/10 No objection offered to display of national flag on 17 October 1946.

Same directives are on

• 3 November (publication of Constitution, birthday of Meiji Emperor), 23 November (Niinamesai), 25 December(Christmas) in 1946
• 1, 3, 5 January (New year days), 21 March (Chunfen), 3 April (Emperor Jimmu festicval), 29 April (birthday of Showa Emperor Hirohito), 3 May(Constitution day), 24 September (Qiufen), 17 October (Kannamesai), 3 November, 23 November, 25 December in 1947
• 1, 3, 5 January, 11 February (National Foundation Day)

In 14 September 1948:

• Approves display of the Japanese national flag on the nine Japanese national holidays as listed.

In 15 November 1948:

• Approves display of the Japanese national flag in accordance with the specified instructions at the ports of Sasebo, Maizuru and Hakodate during debarking of Japanese repatriates.

In 6 January 1949:

• Authorizes the Japanese national flag to be displayed and used without restriction within the territorial limits of Japan, as defined by SCAPINs 677 and 841.

SCAP allowed to use Hinomaru in holidays at first, and then allowed all the time in 1949. In addition, SCAP regarded Hinomaru as the national flag. --Mochi 11:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

An addition.

• SCAPIN 56 1945/09/25 GC "RADIO DIRECTING JAPANESE GOVERNMENT NOT TO FLY NAVAL NATIONAL ENSIGN (WITH RAYS) BUT MAY FLY JAPANESE MERCHANT ENSIGN ON JAPANESE NAVAL VESSELS EMPLOYED AS TRANSPORTS TO RETURN NATIONALS TO JAPAN."

I do not know about the directions in SCAPIN-A's.--Jjok (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

However, Hinomaru was not the official flag of Occupied Japan. It is an assumption that SCAP regarded Hinomaru as the national flag. I disagree to place Hinomaru in the infobox just because it was restricted at times although gradually relaxed, and allowing to fly a historic/cultural/ traditional flag may bring "happiness" among Japanese citizens. However, the civil ensign was de facto the official flag of Japan during the occupation. Nevertheless, I agree that we should really closed down this argument... just for a flag. Kingj123 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the citations presented here, the following facts became clear.

1. This flag image:Flag of Allied Occupied Japan.svg was a civil ensign during 1945-1952, not a national flag.
2. Hoisting the Hinomaru was restricted by SCAP without approval during Oct.1946-Jan.1949.
3. Hinomaru became to the official national flag by the Japanese law as from 1999. However, it customary had used as same as national flag until 1999. Actually, Hinomaru was referred to "national flag" by SCAP in SCAPINs.

Moreover, I found some citations which are considering the hinomaru as the national flag of Japan. [9], [10], [11], [12]

I give support to use the Hinomaru for infobox rather than nothing. Because, This articIe is not the Flag of Japan. I don't see any problem in using the Hinomaru considered to be a national flag. I think it should be mentioned in the article of Flag of Japan as instructions. Otherwise should we demand RfC?--W/mint^-Talk- 10:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The occupation lasted until 1952 while SCAP allowed to use hinomaru in 1949 in Japan. This means at least during 1949-1952, hinomaru was the flag of Japan, which was the Occupied Japan. So we can put hinomaru in the infobox. In addition, if was used instead of hinomaru, this might be considered a symbol of Japan, so we can put together in the infobox. However, we still lack information about . Several sources say the flag was for ships. This does not mean "The naval-ensign was de facto the official flag of Allied occupation of Japan."--Mochi (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However, there are no sites so far that states that hinomaru is the national flag of occupied Japan, it is ambiguous. However, there is at least a source that states that was an occupation flag of Japan. Even if the flag is just a naval ensign, residential flag, organisation flag... it does not matter. Kingj123 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say again that it is nonsense for us to talk what the Japanese national flag was before 1999. Hinomaru was the de facto national flag, and SCAP called hinomaru national flag. In addition, we have no reliable sources that was an occupation flag of Japan. [13] lacks official/legal sources. I found some books and websites about that saying it was a civil/naval ensign for Japanese ships and called "E flag" or "SCAJAP flag". But they does not say it was a flag of Occupied Japan.--Mochi (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Scarce food

The article currently states that "MacArthur arrived in Tokyo on August 30, and immediately decreed several laws: ... No Allied personnel were to eat the scarce Japanese food.'". If I recall correctly, Embracing Defeat spins this rather differently: MacArthurs wasn't concerned about limited Japanese supplies, he was concerned about his soldiers getting poisoned. Jpatokal (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Search for it in Google books ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

reverted addition of Land reform section

Content was copy/pasted word for word (preserving poor spelling in the original) from Agricultural Land Reform in Postwar Japan: Experiences and Issues Ling.Nut 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag issue: straw poll, not RfC

Straw poll on the issue of flags:

• Use the Hinomaru

Support Include an extended discussion of the relevant issues in the Flag of Japan article; place one or two sentences plus a link to Flag of Japan in this article. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support As I already wrote the reason on the above.--W/mint^-Talk- 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support with the addition of a citation or two explaining this issue, or a link to the Flag of Japan article discussing this issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support --Saintjust (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support LordAmeth (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support It was restricted but never changed.--Jjok (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Support The ensing lacks official sources and it seems just an ensign for ships. Hinomaru was called national flag.--Mochi (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Support --Azukimonaka (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Use the Sin bandera "question flag"
• Use the ensign

Strong Support there are no sites so far that states that hinomaru is the national flag of occupied Japan. Just like how Residential flag represented Korea during Japanese occupation, and United Nations flag represents Kosovo today... the ensign represents the occupied Japan. --Kingj123 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support per Kingj123. Ling.Nut, you're kidding? All member of the WPJapan gathered above. Japan was defeated and then surrender to US, which is fact. You should've notified editors into WPUSA and relevant countries of the matter. It is not conclusive yet. --Appletrees (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• None of the above; no mention of flag in template

Conclusion The poll has been up a few days; I notified a couple people yesterday in addition to the ones who had already voted. It stands at 6-to-1 in favor of the Hinomaru. I'm calling that a supermajority. This decision refelects WP:CONSENSUS. It also refelects de facto usage... Since we have both WP:CONSENSUS and Verifiability there is little or no grounds for further debate. Further discussion is possible, but if it becomes contentious (including further page reversions) then I suggest that it be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I notified the editor who cast the lone dissenting vote, here Ling.Nut (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it was closed early, but I am not sure if we needed to ask every country that occupied Japan to ask about how they feel. Also, as we mentioned before, we had no assertion that the ensign was a national flag, except from typos from websites. We do know for the Hinomaru that, from 1947 on, it was allowed to use on federal buildings and designated as the "national flag" according to the letters and books we found. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious lack of negative viewpoint on occupation

Can someone decent please add a section explaining the negative aspects of the Occupation, it reads somewhat like a piece of American propaganda at the moment. Adding the negatives and clarifying the positives is needed to keep this article neutral... —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishHaremOtaku (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed occupation map

I have removed the following map from the article as no citiation was provided for it in the article or on the image's page, and there's no explanation of whether it was ever accepted. It should only be re-added if citations can be provided, and a map of the actual occupation zones would be more useful anyway. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the early proposed divisions of Japan into occupation zones that was abandoned after the Japanese surrender. For the other proposed division see here

Agreement to divide Japan

I have to ask where you got this information? The Allies never had any agreement to divide Japan. The Soviets wished to occupy Hokkaido, but where forestalled because Japan surrendered and Truman began making it clear that the Yalta Agreement did not give Russia any right to occupy any part of the Japanese Home Islands.Jmacatty (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we have it removed? The Japanese wiki also has it. Ominae (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship as a 'negative impact'?

Is this really the case? The Japanese press was censored during the 1930s and 1940s and the Japanese government routinely didn't allow bad news to be printed (for instance, all knowledge of the Battle of Midway was supressed for some months (years?)). It's hard to see how the Allies made the Japanese media any less free. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Nick, I presume you agree with me that censorship by itself has a negative impact. Arguing that Allied occupation censure does not have a negative impact simply because it was preceded by Japanese censure seems a bit cheeky. Would a hypothetical post-war censure in the US not have had a negative impact simply because the U.S. had had wartime censure, ergo there would have been no difference? Anyways, as one of the the sources states, the Allied censure was even worse, you were not even allowed to let people know it existed. But fine, you have made your position clear - as you lately have done on so many far east related articles I've edited - and I've made my position clear. By the way, what do you propose we do, move it to a new section called "neutral impact"?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And again about rape section

"there were around 40 reported rapes a day until the spring of 1946, when the figures rose to over 300 reported rapes a day due to the criminalization of prostitution". To whom did they report to and where are those reports? In the H-net review ( http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=114661059720058 ) the only source for mass rapes is "one okinawan historian"... I don't think this is appropriate to accuse thousands of American soldiers without any formal investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.169.5 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"To whom did they report?" Mainly the Japanese police, but also Allied military police. "Where are those reports?" In their archives, one would assume. A scholarly discussion of this can be found in Yuki Tanaka: Japan's Comfort Women. This book is, as you might glean from the title, mainly about Japanese atrocities, but it also devotes a chapter to the Allied occupation. It's certainly a respectable secondary source, so it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't have it at hand at this moment, but I can add citations later.

I should add that I have read several other scholarly works on the subject as well and all of them mentioned this. It's certainly no wanton accusation. 82.83.253.58 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(continuing ancient discussion from above). We've decided on the Okinawan topics that George Feifer is not only WP:NN but not WP:RS either. Student7 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed POV banner

I removed the POV banner that had been placed in April 08 as the dispute to which it refers appears fairly non-existent, other than a brief note placed here on the talk page that has been subsequently ignored. Given that there appears to be no dispute, and the original poster's complaint that there was no coverage of any negative consequences has been (as far as I can see) reasonably responded to with what is there now, I personally think it's removable. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV concern?

This entire article on Japan's Occupation resounds with pessimism and focuses too much on negative aspects of the occupation. If you want the truth read American Caesar. The occupation was a resounding success and it must be understood by the reader of the article that very rarely if ever has a conquered nation been treated so charitable and equitable as was post WWII Japan. America infused liberty and self determination, our most prized ideals, into Japan's culture and law. Japan accepted these ideals and transformed themselves from a militaristic feudalistic nationalistic state to one of the very greatest nations on earth in a matter of a few years. Focusing on the "negative occupation" does a diservice to modern Japan and twists the altruistic intentions of MacArthur and his SCAB. It undermines MacArthur's wisdom and deep understanding of Asian peoples. This article needs some serious revision. In its current state it stinks of anti-Americanism and hatred of the US military. I am deeply offended and call for a rewrite. I'll do it myself if necessary. Mezz07 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First, please put new comments at the bottom of the article. Second, you can't write an article based entirely on a single source; just because you happen to think American Caesar is the "truth" does not make it so. However, if that source meets Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, you can certainly add additional information--it's quite common, when there is disagreement between reliable sources about how to interpret something for our articles to show more than one possible interpretation. If there are any specific parts of the article that you think aren't based on reliable sources or are undue, please explain here and we can figure out what to do with them. Finally, note that your issues about being "offended" or this doing a "disservice" to anyone have nothing whatsoever to do with how we edit articles. For that matter, we don't even try to decide what the "truth" is--all we worry about is what is verified by sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Qwyrxian, this article does present a more gloomy picture of the occupation period than that presented in mainstream histories so there are substantial areas in which it can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan and military occupation

An editor has made the claim that Taiwan was also placed under military occupation; however, the claim is actually highly contentious and should not be stated as fact (de facto Taiwan was detached from the Japanese empire and given/restored to China). The references used seem questionable. I would appreciate comment. Ngchen (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, calling this an 'occupation' doesn't seem appropriate. I've just reverted these changes. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.176.33 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See also : Comfort Women by the US in Occupied Japan

It's seems very opinionated to find the link to RAA prostitution in the "See also" section listed as "Comfort Women by the United States in Occupied Japan". "Comfort Women" is a very charged name and a translation of 慰安婦, a Japanese word I never saw used in relation to RAA activities. Also, said activities were mostly organized by the Japanese government, as explained in the article, even if known and agreed by SCAP for a time. It is also the only link where the title of the linked article is modified.

For those reason, I changed the wording to the name of the articles it links to: "Recreation and Amusement Association". 212.77.176.226 (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC) François

Good change: thanks Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. A bit of a stealth pipe.

Rm it because it was already linked in article (not obvious before you unpiped it!). Student7 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

the lead

The lead does a poor job of summarizing the article or of identifying the major issues. Apart from the excellent Dower quote it is useless. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass-deleting the content is not the answer. The quote that you added is fine, but it should probably go in another section of article. I however really don't agree with all this deleting and trimming. Keiiri (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

for example,the long discussion of the flag takes up far more attention than RS allow, and is in the wrong place. The discussion of Allies in the lede is false--suggesting it was like Germany-- and it is based on footnote #1 on art history!! Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what flag you mean. It also flat-out says it's unlike Germany. The allies like the British Empire and China gained other parts of the Japanese Empire, like Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea, not Japan directly. It was an Allied occupation, not solely a US one. Keiiri (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

the long flag section is under the surrender section. Taiwan & Korea are not covered here--because they were no longer part of Japan. The Allies had a very minor role in the activities covered in this article. Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you read the article, they are indeed covered here. And the official name was still "Empire of Japan", it wasn't renamed until 1947. And from what I see, there was already a long discussion about the flags above. Keiiri (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument--the RS cover the occupation of Japan -- and do not deal with Manchuria, Taiwan Korea which after Macarthur arrived had been 100% removed from Japan and were not under the Occupation. Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what problem you're trying to make. The official name was still called '"Empire of Japan" until 1947. The name wasn't changed until 1947. Regardless, the article still covers those territories. And regardless, it was still an Allied occupation. Keiiri (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

no -- you are confused by terminology . It was an empire because there was an Emperor. The occupation did not deal with Korea, Manchuria or Taiwan because those were no longer part of the Japanese Empire. It was officially an Allied occupation that all the reliable sources agree that the other allies played only a minor role -- they had a symbolic presence of ceremonies, for example. You seem unfamiliar with the basic reliable sources -- what sources are you using??? Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is still an emperor regardless. The point is, those territories are still covered in the article. The article is fine, it doesn't give undue weight to the other Allies. That doesn't justify your anti-Japanese, pro-American bias. Keiiri (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While MacArthur was powerful, the Emperor was not. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Japan could have officially cared less. There was an independently elected administration there. It was a separate country. Korea had to "invite" the United Nations to participate. Student7 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what discussion implies about "other" territories. Britain re-gained Hong Kong, which it had title to until 1999, China re-gained Formosa/Taiwan, which it had lost to the Empire in 1895, both North and South Korean re-gained their autonomy, which it had held until the Treaty of Surrender was signed. After that, none of these places were any concern of Japan. Student7 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion has become very off topic, I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore. I never said anything about the Korean War. And those territories are already mentioned in the article, including the map. I did not add them, and I don't care about them. If you want to remove any mention of them, go ahead. Keiiri (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Education reform

"Before and during the war, Japanese education was based on the German system, with "Gymnasium" (selective grammar schools) and universities to train students after primary school."

This section about school reform seems to contain an inaccuracy. Specifically German grammar schools are not selective (as far as I know), but rather German High schools are selective, splitting students into the the Gymnasium (college preparatory), Realschule (intermediate schools), and Hauptschule (vocational education) schools. This split usually occurs after the fourth grade in Germany.

I know nothing about the Japanese education system, but would it not be more accurate for the article to read as follows?

"Before and during the war, Japanese education was based on the German system, with "Gymnasium" (selective high schools) and universities to train students after primary school."

Sounds good. What the current section is lacking is a WP:RS. One or more should be used to support your rewording. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Old Newspaper Articles of Demonstrations in Post-war Japan

Here is more information on Demonstrations in Post-war Japan

• "Remove Hirohito, Tokyo Reds Ask". The Pittsburgh Press. Oct 10, 1945.
• "REMOVE HIROHITO IS CRY OF FREED JAP COMMUNISTS". Toronto Daily Star. Oct 10, 1945.
• "Communist Crowds Voice Imperial Rule Opposition; Nippons Band To Assail Reds". The Tuscaloosa News. Oct 10, 1945.
• "TOKYO COMMUNISTS, KOREANS SHOUT OPPOSITION TO HIROHITO". Spokane Daily Chronicle. Oct 10, 1945.
• "Anti-Russian Organization Rises In Japan; Red Liaison Officer Says That American Occupation Too Soft". Times Daily. Oct 9, 1945.
• "Japanese Wave Red Banners In Tokyo Parade". Ottawa Citizen. Oct 10, 1945.
• "JAP COMMUNISTS PARADE IN TOKYO". The Norwalk Hour. Oct 10, 1945.
• "Nippon Communists March Through Allied-Ruled Tokyo, Ask Removal of Jap Emperor". The Bulletin. Oct 10, 1945.
• "Reds Stage Parade, Ask Hirohito Ouster". Lodi News-Sentinel. Oct 11, 1945.</ref>

Old Newspapers on Political Prisoners

"JAPS. SAY SACK EMPEROR". Examiner. 12 October 1945.

"REMOVE HIROHITO IS CRY OF FREED JAP COMMUNISTS". Toronto Daily Star. October 10, 1945.

"AMAZED TOKIO PEOPLE SEE COMMUNIST MARCH". The Telegraph. 11 October 1945.

"JAP COMMUNISTS PARADE IN TOKYO". The Norwalk Hour. Oct 10, 1945.

Communists

Subsections on Communists seem unduly long considering they were a third party well behind the other two. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the info should move to the JCP's wiki article instead.(Greg723 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)). Info has been moved to the wiki article Japanese Communist Party (Greg723 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)).

Japanese American service

The the article mentions Japanese-Americans serving in the occupation at Japanese American service in World War II#After the Surrender of Japan Fortunatestars (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Occupation of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070807063408/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=13261 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=13261

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Occupation of Japan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Occupation of Japan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mainichi":

• From Beate Sirota Gordon: "Beate Gordon, a drafter of Japan's Constitution, dies at 89". The Mainichi. January 01, 2013 (Mainichi Japan). Archived from the original on 2013-02-18. Retrieved 1 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Constitution of Japan: "Beate Gordon, a drafter of Japan's Constitution, dies at 89". The Mainichi. January 1, 2013. Retrieved January 1, 2013.

Reference named "one":

• From Independent State of Croatia: Ben Cahoon. "Croatia". Worldstatesmen.org. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
• From Beate Sirota Gordon: Dower, pp. 365-367

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The "CRITICISM" section

What does it mean the "return" of Chichi Jima"? Chichi Jima was originally and first settled by White people, with an American leader, in the very early 1800's. Tokyo did not have sovereignty over Chichi Jima at the time and there was no Japan, in the sense of a central government. Based on the historical facts, the word "return" does not apply. It was first an American colony.Starhistory22 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox edit wars - it seems to be a translation issue

Looking back at the history of this page, there have been some long-term, low-grade edit wars going on in the infobox for at least 15 years, between editors who seem to mostly be Japanese and want to treat this page like a nation, and editors who seem to mostly be non-Japanese who don't. I did some investigating, and it seems that this is a translation issue between English and Japanese. While the standard term for this topic in English is "Allied Occupation of Japan," "U.S. Occupation of Japan," or just "Occupation of Japan," with "occupation" as the main noun, the standard term in Japanese (and the title of the associated Japanese Wikipedia page) is "Japan during the Allied Occupation" (連合国占領下の日本, Rengō kuni senryō-ka no Nihon), with "Japan" as the main noun. This means that the Japanese editors want to keep adding the imperial seal, the national anthem, and the capital to the infobox. However this makes much less sense in English, since the Occupation itself did not have an official capital, a national anthem, or an official flag or imperial seal (other than maybe the U.S. flag).

I would propose that since this is the English Wikipedia and the title of the page is "Occupation of Japan," that we not include the anthem or the capital or an "official language," and probably not the imperial seal either. But I would be interested in hearing other peoples' thoughts below in order to build consensus. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments over the past two months I followed WP:BEBOLD and went ahead and removed the items in the infobox that do not make sense for an English page on this topic. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Silence does not mean approval, it means that no one is really interested.

I did not take the silence as approval. I took it as a lack of interest and made the edit accordingly. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nor does your personal characterization of other editors's motives carry any real weight. I'm restoring the Japanese titles: if you think there's a "translation problem" with what the people of a country call part of their own history, you should take it up with the editors of the Japanese Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 18:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that just because pages are linked between different language Wikipedias does not necessarily imply that the titles of those pages are direct translations. Here on the English Wikipedia, we have to make the best decisions for English-language readers ourselves. There is no reasonable mechanism for "taking it up with the editors of Japanese Wikipedia." In any case, the Japanese editors are fundamentally not engaged in translating our English term when they decide how to title their articles about their own country. If you are going to purport to give a Japanese translation of a term here on the English Wikipedia, it is incumbent upon you to make sure it is an actual translation, and not a related but separate Japanese term with a completely different subject noun. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you put your post in July at the TOP of this page instead of the bottom, where it belongs chronologically, might have something to do with no one noticing it. --Calton | Talk 18:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

It is fairly obvious to me that the lead sentence is an example of superfluous bolding, as the occupation of Japan is defined as an occupation of Japan. Ash-Gaar, could you please explain how it is not? Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Surtsicna: "Allied Occupation of Japan" was the forma/widely accepted name for this event. This term is used in this form in academic scholarship on this topic, and is almost invariably capitalized in such. Thus it is appropriate to bold it as per MOS:BOLDLEAD. I realize you were presuming mere redundancy but that was not the case here as this is a specific term for this event. This is a significant alternate title to the title of the article, so it needs to be included and bolded. By no means is this merely "redundancy for the sake of boldface."

That would be a good reason if it could be demonstrated that the term is indeed invariably capitalized, but from what I can see Britannica does not capitalize it, nor does the Office of the Historian. That we are not dealing with a proper name is also suggested by the fact that the title of the article does not match the bolded subject of the lead sentence. Which of the two is supposed to be the proper name? Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Article title

There seems to be a mini-move war going on over the article's title. As it hasn't been discussed, I've moved it back to 'Occupation of Japan'. As far as I'm aware this is the common name, and as there are no other instances of Japan being occupied by other countries there doesn't seem to be a need for the 'Allied' at the front. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The Occupation of Japan was carried out by the United States and the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces, which consisted of troops from the United Kingdom (Great Britain), Australia, New Zealand and India. Allied Occupation seems the more appropriate title. Smokesignal11 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Truth; Perspective; Reality; and the Occupation

So, it says here on wiki that the occupation ended in the 50s; how can anyone say it ended in the 50s when clearly, nearly 10,000 acres of a very small nation were under the control of the US military in 2016. This is misleading, and a huge misrepresentation of the truth. How many more acres are really under the control of the US today? How many laws are still under the influence of Americans? Why do I ask this? The same is true in Germany, and in my opinion, it is time for the people to know the truth, or at least be aware that there are multiple perceptions of the truth. Regardless of a person's individual perception of World War Two and the participation of the Axis' role in the war, how is it justice to refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of these nations for decades?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/us-japan-okinawa-land-return/index.html 2001:569:5250:500:29E1:B170:AC92:EEB8 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Operation Blacklist

There was a redirect to the page from Operation Blacklist, I can find no reference to operation blacklist in the Japanese occupation primary page. If there was something related to the Japanese Occupation called operation Blacklist. I'll check up on this again by 3/1/2024 to see if any stake holders for the page know anything about operation blacklist as it relates to the occupation. Other wise, I'll remove the link eximo (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Operation Blacklist" was the original plan for the Occupation of Japan and Korea. The occupation of Japan followed many of its ideas. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

About Spratly

Although there are territorial disputes between China and the Philippines, there is no need to modify the contents of many treaties and the post-war de facto occupation. And the modification does not match the original map. --Inkuaxjieng 17:29 13 May 2004 (UTC)