What should be mentioned in Japanese history textbooks ?

[Loyalist]

Because war itself is a crime, Those foolish enough to set up rules for war beg disaster from those who are willing to win at all cost. Im saying that they are just plain and simple criminals. I belive the term war criminal is foolish.
(this is from an erlier post.)

I am aware of the rules set up for war, but this in itself is quite fustrating.Maciamo, I hope you arn't implying that im babbling mindlessly. I dont belive that term shold exist. A crime is a crime is a crime is a crime. We shold not specify them in such a manner. A white collar crime, is still a crime and they shold not be called "white collar criminals" they are just "criminals".

Are you Inferring I don't know my history Maciamo? I am quite aware of who Himmler, Goebbles, and the rest are. (If your last line was for the sake of others, and not implying that I have no idea what im talking about then ignore this.)

[Maciamo]

Because war itself is a crime, Those foolish enough to set up rules for war beg disaster from those who are willing to win at all cost. Im saying that they are just plain and simple criminals.

No, in wartime there is a big difference of responsibility between the people who give the orders and those who execute them. "War criminal" refers to the people at the top organising the war, and especially ordering the massacre of civilians (incl. women and children).

What about torture ? Don't you make any difference between the ways of killing someone (eg. shot, or made to suffer horribly for hours or days ?) ? If not, then I suppose you also don't recognise manslaughter as less serious than murder. In the gradation of responsibility for killing someone, manslaughter (killing someone by accident, with no intend to kill) is the least serious, followed respectively by :

- killing on orders (well you could say that the executioners of death penalty also kill on orders like soldiers, so they are completely crime-free, legally speaking)
- murder with extenuating circumstances
- cold blooded murder
- serial murder
- mass murder
- and finally, ordering mass murders (+tortures, human experiments, etc.)

Class-A war criminals are this last category.

Are you Inferring I don't know my history Maciamo? I am quite aware of who Himmler, Goebbles, and the rest are. (If your last line was for the sake of others, and not implying that I have no idea what im talking about then ignore this.)

No. I don't know you, so I was just giving general info. But do you know about the Japanese war criminals in question (Tojo, Itagaki, Matsui, etc.) ? (see list here).

[Loyalist]

What about torture ? Don't you make any difference between the ways of killing someone (eg. shot, or made to suffer horribly for hours or days ?) ? If not, then I suppose you also don't recognise manslaughter as less serious than murder. In the gradation of responsibility for killing someone, manslaughter (killing someone by accident, with no intend to kill) is the least seriou

Shooting someone and touturing someone to death. Both acts still make you a criminal, as i stated before war itself is a crime and either way you are killing someone and you are now a criminal. Manslaughterr is different in my mind and not as black and white, it depends on the circumstances, for instance a man runs over a pedestrian on accident, ok fine, but if he was drunk, or not fit to be driving then he is a criminal and that persons blood is on his hands. and yes, those with more power have more responsability, and they are criminals also. But as i veiw war itslef to be a crime i do not belive the term War criminal should be used. They are criminals.