Talk:Occupation of Japan

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."^[1] 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.^[2]

It was not uncommon for soldiers to boil the flesh off Japanese skulls and send them home as souvenirs to their sweethearts.^[3] 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."^[4]

Out of 9,100,000 mobilized Japanese troops, only 42,543 were officially recorded as POWs prior to the Japanese capitulation.^[5] Killing of prisoners became so common that War psychologist had to device formula for how to treat later feelings of guilt amongst soldiers.^[6] According to the war correspondent Edgar L. Jones; "We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats . . . finished off the enemy wounded."^[7]--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

• • 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

• • 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

--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.

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)

(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 ) for Japanese marchant ships. , 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

"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)

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>

"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.

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)).

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)

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)

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). Retrieved 1 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
• From Constitution of Japan: "Beate Gordon, a drafter of Japan's Constitution, dies at 89". The Mainichi. January 1, 2013. Retrieved January 1, 2013.^{[permanent dead link]}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Recently I tried to make an edit to the infobox adding Supreme Commanders for the Allied Powers after the occupation ended in 1952, since the position continued to exist until 1957. However my edit was reverted by someone who believed that I was attempting to argue that the occupation lasted past 1952, when it obviously didn't. I attempted to restore my edit claiming such, however my edit was reverted again and I was accused of "edit warring".

The reason for my edit was to reflect the fact that large numbers of American troops remained in Japan after official sovereignty was handed over to the Japanese government in 1952, and that the Supreme Allied Command that administered the occupation continued to exist, albeit no longer with jurisdiction over the Japanese government, until 1957 when the position of SCAP was disestablished. This is reflected in the body of the article. Therefore I am looking to get consensus on whether the SCAP leaders after 1952 - Clark, Hull, Taylor, Lemnitzer - should be included. 149.4.106.127 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who reverted these changes, but another editor also reverted, so I am not the only editor who disagreed with this. Given that the Occupation of Japan ended in 1952, it is completely inappropriate to list numerous SCAP commanders and Japanese prime ministers after 1952 in an infobox about the Occupation of Japan. Perhaps it might make sense to list these commanders on the SCAP page, but not here, since, as stated, the Occupation ended in 1952. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The section Criticism contains a direct quotation from a Japanese newspaper, and the quote uses the word obsequious. Even though I am well educated, I have never seen that word before, and I had to look it up. I assume that other readers might have similar difficulty. According to Wiktionary, it means, "Excessively eager and attentive to please or to obey instructions."

The quotation also includes the words "irresponsible," and "listless," however, they are common enough for most readers to understand, and do not need linking.

I propose linking obsequious to the Wiktionary definition, because it would improve the article. Comfr (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summaries, I disagree. In my view "obsequious" is an ordinary word and should not be linked as per MOS:OVERLINK. In particular, its meaning is not particularly relevant to understanding this period of Japanese history. It's just...an English word. Happy to hear what other people think, however! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I carefully read MOS:OVERLINK, and I cannot understand why it applies to obsequious in the context of this article. "Ordinary word" is not mentioned in MOS:OVERLINK. It asks whether it would "help someone understand the article you are linking from." Viewing the definition actually did help me better understand that section. That is why I added the link; I wanted to help other readers.

Why is colonialism linked? The occupation was only temporary, and not usual colonialism. Do you agree that the occupation was colonialism?

I checked the reading level of that sentence, and I got the following:

Score: 19.88 [ = grade level ]

Reading Difficulty: Extremely Difficult

Grade Level: College Graduate

Age Range: 23+

Is that how we want Wikipedia?

Thanks for your other contributions to this article. Comfr (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ash-Gaar Having reviewed MOS:OVERLINK myself, I believe you're referring to the "everyday words" section. I don't believe the word "obsequious" is an everyday word that you can expect most people to know the meaning of, and am therefore in support of adding a Wiktionary link to the word. If you are concerned about the overuse of links, perhaps the quote should be paraphrased instead of directly stated in the article. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)