Dongju

read today's article on Nogun-ri and write a half page reflection explaining how this is the same or different from Korea-Japan controversy. Note how the perceptions of the Koreans and Americans involved in this incident differ. Do you still have the same opinion about compensation? Why? If you believe this situation is different, how is it different?

I believe that the Nogun-ri incident is slightly different from the controversy between japan and korea. To begin with, the American government acknowledged that the war crimes were a possibility, and launched an investigation to confirm the truth. The japanese were unwilling to do even this, and tried to cover up their war crimes, even at a governmental level. They refused to acknowledge that there could be any truth in the people's claims, and denied that they had ever participated in war crimes. Another difference in the way the US. handled the conflict and the way the Japaesne handled it is that the US was willing to pay reparations, in the name of apologizing for the atrocity. The Japanese never made an official effort to makeup for their actions, and while they did offer financial aid, it is unsure whether or not this was meant as repayment or just cooperation between countries. I still think that compensation is not limited to material repayment, and that a country needs to do whatever it can to apologize to the victimized country. The easiest way to do this is usually by paying them back (monetary compensation) and a formal/official apology, acknowledging their war crimes.

-- do countries have the obligation to compensate each other for injustices done in time of war?

i think that even in war there is a difference between doing what is necessary to take over the country, and committing acts of excessive injustice and violence. In the case of the RON, the japanese overstepped the boundaries of what was required to get the Chinese to submit to their rule. The leaders had already fled, the soldiers were surrendering in the masses, and YET the japanese still carried on pillaging the city and terrorizing the people. For this reason, the Japanese are responsible, and should be obligated to compensate for the crimes they committed. An apology to the chinese people is a given, and it would not be unrealistic for the chinese to demand material compensation for the damage that the Japanese did to their cities. - =Rape of Nanking, reflections=

**introduction**
Before reading this book i was unaware of the extent of human cruelty. There had been isolated instanced of extreme barbarity such as the Nazi's, Stalin's "work camps", or the colonization of Africa but none seemed as gruesome as this. The statistics made me wonder why this event hasnt been more publicised and why it is rarely mentioned in western textbooks. In my world history class last year, i remember that Hitler and Stalin contributed entire chapters to the history textbook, and yet the Japanese occupation of China was only given a paragraph. In addition to making me wonder why the chinese have not expressed more outrage at the event, the introduction made me curious as to the midset of the japanese. They used the same tactics that many European countries used wehn colonizing africa. They claimed they were 'genetically superior' and used social darwinism as an excuse to wipe out entire populations. **Were these people little better than animals, or can they distance thenselves from their crimes by saying they were ordered to do so?**

What anagered me the most out of this introduction was the fact that Japan has gotten away with thei part in this atrocity. I found it unfair that Germany had to pay reparations for WW2 and yet it is still being debated what Japan was responsible for during the war. An apt quote from the book was "while Germans have made repeated apologies to their holocaust victems, the Japanese have enshrined their war criminals in Tokyo". While this is very hard to understand (from an outsider's point of view), to the japanese the war crimilas are more like heros because their actions bettered Japan in some way. **When does it become necessary for a country to forgo personal gain for the good of other countries/humanity?** The author mentions that it is necessary for Japan to acknowledge its part in the hostile takeover of Nanking, so that it can learn from its mistakes and move on. I thought that this didnt apply just ot the Japanese, but also humanity. **Have we actually learned from history?**

**chapter 1**
Chapter 1 of the book answered alot of my questions from the introduction. It went into a lot of detail about the mentality of the japanese and specific examples of their culture that had allowed the japaned to override basic human instinct and commit extreme acts of cruelty. The japanese warrior code 'bushido' was the base for a lot of aggression against the chinese. Japan resented the west for forcing it to open up to foreign influence, and determined that it would modernize and then use its technology to take over the world. The people were lead to believe that honorable suicide was preffered to surrender, which was perfectly illustrated in the fact that during WW2 the japanese surrendered at a rate of 1 per 120 dead, while the allies surrendered at 1 per 3 dead. The "country before individual" attitude was amplified by the belief that the Emperor was a god, and that dying for him was the greatest honor that could be achieved. For a country that did not value individual life, it would be hard to be compassionate for the people of other countries. What made the desensitization of the japanese even worse, and what allowed the Japanese to carry out their domination of Nanking, was that from a young age they were brainwashed to believe that the chinese were of less importance than animals. By demonizing the chinese people, the japanese were able to distance themselves from the fact that they were slaughtering hundreds of people.

--- Write a short reflection of what you learned from these readings. With the benefit of hind site and knowledge of China and Japan, would Korea had been better off if it had “opened up to the west.”

I saw a patten in east asian reactions to western influence. It seems like China Japan and Korea were all very nationalistic, and desperately wanted to maintain autonomy and independence from any outside influence. Only after being subjected to the consequences that such voluntary isolation caused(China and the opium war, Japan and the unequal treaties, and Korea and Japanese occupation) did the countries begin to open up. I think that if Korea had westernized any sooner than it did it would have lost alot of its traditions and national pride that are characteristics of korean culture. Because it was forced to westernize (through the Japanese occupation), it resented any kind of outside influence, which served as motivation for it to better itself. Today Korea is rising as major asian power, so it isnt as if choosing isolation hindered its progress.