U.S. House Takes Japan to Task Over Comfort Women

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Locked
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#16

Post by David Thompson » 16 Feb 2007, 08:48

Let's get off the subject of politics, and back to the subject of war crimes.

Chris -- You wrote:
Why should Japan apoligize for something that happened 60 years ago , when all parties concerned ignore and do nothing about the same crime happening today?
(1) There is a difference between a national policy and the actions of criminal bands. The difference is that a government represents and is symbolic of a nation, while criminal bands represent only themselves. Every nation has criminals, but not every nation adopts or condones a widespread policy of criminal behavior. Japan did. That's why a national apology is in order.

(2) If you think that nations and national governments are not trying to suppress modern sex slavery, you need to do some more reading. Suppression of the slave trade has been a lively topic for many years, with many positive results.

caramut
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 12:11
Location: Australia

#17

Post by caramut » 16 Feb 2007, 10:54

Kim Sung wrote:A fellow member opened a similar thread yesterday.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=116126
That's me.

I think the difficulty many people like me have with comfort women and other unresolved issues from Japan's war is the gulf between apparent apologies by Japan, of which there have been many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... d_by_Japan , and the reality of Japan's inability at various levels to confront and deal with these issues.

Unlike the Germans, Japan's apologies and conduct over the past 50 years have never managed to constitute what Westerners would regard as full recognition of fault and genuine contrition for it. Never has Japan sais "What we did was terribly, terribly wrong. We were brutal. We were inhuman. We apologise for it. We will never do it again ." Instead there are apparent apologies which dance around the issue in high-sounding language that avoids direct recognition of Japan's fault. That's not just my view.
The head of the major Japanese daily Yomiuri Shimbun, Tsuneo Watanabe, on Thursday urged prime ministers of Japan to apologize for the nation's military aggression before and during World War II to neighboring countries in a clearer manner.
"It would be best for parliament to set up a standing committee on war responsibility and express its position," Watanabe said at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, adding, "But if it cannot do that, a prime minister (should) say to foreign countries that Japan made such mistakes and apologize for them."

The 79-year-old chief editor of Japan's largest daily by circulation also said his newspaper, known for its conservative stance, should also post an article apologizing for what Japan did in other Asian countries including China and South Korea.

Japanese prime ministers, including the incumbent Junichiro Koizumi, have expressed apology through such phrasing as "the feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology," but Watanabe, an Imperial Japanese Army private during the war, said, "The prime ministers have been wishy-washy and failed to clearly express an apology."
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060323/kyodo/d8gh68080.html

Rather than castigating Congress for dealing with the comfort women issue, Americans ought to be proud that their representatives are standing for the finest traditions of justice inherent in the American constitution and everything for which America stands.

Dealing with the comfort women issue long after the war is just as much a matter of justice and a proper subject for American government involvement as was opposition to Japan's atrocities in China before it. Time does not heal all wounds.

As for arguing that the comfort women issue should be ignored because forced prostitution allegedly occurs elsewhere today, the correct position is that both issues should be pursued and remedied because both are wrong.

Refusing to deal with a past wrong because there is a current equivalent or similar wrong would mean that nobody should object to Japanese beheadings because the same actions are happening in Iraq and elsewhere now. If that argument is correct, then it follows that the past events weren't wrong either. It's a logical and moral vacuum.


User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#18

Post by Peter H » 16 Feb 2007, 11:10

This article details the half hearted Japanese efforts on this issue:

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workin ... /wp77.html
A National Fund a.k.a. the Asian Women's Fund

After acknowledging the involvement of the military in the comfort system in January 1992, the Japanese government conducted two formal investigations into the matter before it admitted in August 1993 that there had been coercive recruitment in some cases. Prime Minister Miyazawa indicated that the government would come up with some vague gesture in lieu of compensation for the survivors. The Miyazawa cabinet, however, was unable to act on this for two reasons. First, the Korean Council and other support groups were opposed to any measure that evaded Japan's legal responsibility. Second, the Japan Socialist Party had insisted on the investigation of the truth, a sincere apology, and compensation as its policy. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party was trapped between its admission of coercive recruitment and its unwillingness to say or do anything that might indicate legal responsibility.

Moreover, there arose a wave of strong resistance among conservative Japanese to compensating Korean comfort women survivors. Ken'ichi Takaki, head of the legal team for the class-action lawsuit, has suggested three causal factors for this Japanese resistance. First, stunned by the compensation lawsuit, some Japanese immediately assumed that the comfort women survivors were motivated by economic gain. Second, many pointed out that everybody had suffered during the war and that Japanese women had also worked as comfort women. (In other words, it was gendered labor that a certain class of women had offered in order to help their nation win the war.) Finally, many backed the government position that the 1965 agreement normalizing relations between Korea and Japan had settled all reparation issues.

When Tomiichi Murayama, the leader of the Socialist Party, became prime minister in June 1994, progressive intellectuals and movement leaders had high hopes for achieving a satisfactory resolution to the comfort women issue. But Murayama, as a leader of a coalition cabinet, was caught between the conservative resistance and the progressives' clamor for state compensation. In June 1995, his cabinet came up with the proposal to establish the Josei no tame no Ajia Heiwa Yuko Kikin (Asia Peace and Friendship Fund for Women).

Despite harsh criticism of the proposal, a month later the government announced the formation of Josei no tame no Ajia Heiwa Kokumin Kikin, accompanied by a statement from nineteen proponents of the fund calling for public participation in a fund-raising drive. The name of the fund was also slightly changed: Yuko (friendship) in the originally proposed name was replaced by Kokumin (a people, or a nation). In Japanese, the fund is commonly referred to as the Kokumin Kikin (People's or National Fund), while in English, it is known as the Asian Women's Fund.

One of the main criticisms leveled against the AWF has been that it is a "private fund." However, this is inaccurate: although an amalgam of private and government money supports the projects for comfort women survivors, the Japanese government is financially responsible for the operation of the fund. The first president (1995-1999), Bunbei Hara, was a former speaker of the upper house of the Diet. Following Hara's death in 1999, former Prime Minister Murayama agreed in the fall of 2000 to become the second AWF president.

The fund's activities fall into four categories: 1) to deliver two million yen (around US$18,000 depending on the exchange rate used) to each survivor-applicant as "atonement money" raised from the Japanese people, accompanied by letters of apology from the Prime Minister and the AWF president; 2) to implement government programs for the survivors' welfare; 3) to compile materials on the comfort women for the historical record; and 4) to initiate and support activities that address contemporary issues of violence against women. The funds raised from the private sector between 1995 and 2000 have amounted to about 448 million yen, while the government is expected to expend about 700 million yen over a ten-year period in order to pay the medical and welfare expenses of individual victims. The government also grants the fund several hundred million yen each year for its operating budget.

However, the Japanese government has authorized the fund to operate as a non-profit foundation and regularly reiterates that it supports AWF projects out of moral responsibility and that legal compensation issues have been settled. The meaning of the expenditure of state funds is thus fudged by the state's double-talk. Moreover, with its insistence on moral responsibility, the government has sidestepped the issue of whether the comfort system was a war crime. This is the fundamental reason why supporters of state compensation will continue to reject AWF funds.

Another important issue in the AWF controversy is the state's formal apology to the survivors. When the AWF delivered the first "atonement money" to four Filipina survivors in August 1996, they also handed over letters of apology from both Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto and the President of the AWF, Bunbei Hara. Hashimoto's letter included phrases such as "apology and remorse" and "women's honor and dignity," but without any reference to the war of aggression or colonial domination. Activists for state compensation also found fault with the phrase "my personal feelings" in Hashimoto's letter, pointing out that it conveyed the feelings of one individual and not of the government of Japan. It is not known why the term "personal" was added in the official English translation of the Japanese phrase "watashi no kimochi" (my feeling). From 1998 on, when Keizo Obuchi succeeded Hashimoto as prime minister, the letter in English no longer contained the term "personal." Furthermore, Obuchi's letter in the official Korean translation contains the crucial term sajoe (shazai in Japanese). The English word would be "apology," but it is a stronger term than sagwa, another term for apology: sajoe, in contrast to sagwa, implies the admission of a crime, rather than just a mistake. However, except for a few undisclosed recipients of the AWF atonement money, practically no one in Korea is aware of this terminological change because the AWF projects cannot be implemented publicly, owing largely to the strenuous objections raised by the Korean Council and the survivors.

In any case, in comparison to Hashimoto's 1996 letter, which was designed primarily to evade the issue of state compensation, AWF president Hara's letter of apology recognized the involvement of the Japanese military in establishing comfort stations as well as acknowledging coercion and dissimulation in the recruitment of comfort women, some of whom were teenage girls. Both letters do not fail to mention Japan's "moral responsibility," and the phrase, "in cooperation with the Government of Japan," appears multiple times in Hara's letter.

Since the AWF is a compromise measure to deal with the issue of compensating comfort women survivors, the organization is composed of supporters from opposing camps ranging from conservative neo-nationalists to progressive intellectuals. The tensions among them have resulted, among other things, in personal confrontations on the AWF Committee on Historical Materials on "Comfort Women." For example, Ikuhiko Hata, a conservative historian and a member of the committee, has publicly criticized, in a 1999 essay, fellow committee members Soji Takasaki and Haruki Wada, calling them "termites" (shiroari) and accusing them of having a secret agenda eventually to turn AWF activities into state compensation. A primary reason why even some supporters of state compensation-- such as Wada and Takasaki -- back the AWF is their desire to take some concrete action before elderly survivors die without receiving any tokens of atonement, let alone legal compensation. For his decision, Wada has been subjected to vitriolic name-calling by his former friends and allies.

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005, 14:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

#19

Post by Kim Sung » 16 Feb 2007, 11:41

ChristopherPerrien wrote:Besides if you want the "most powerful country" to force Japan to apologize, you need to be looking at China, the USA is a "has been"empire, and in 50 or less years, I'll look like a prophet. Britain was the same in 1900, f-fwd to 1950.
Yes, USA is a declining empire and China is rapidly developing now but her national power hasn't reached Japan's level yet.

If China's per capita income reaches the level of today's South Korea, her economic size in terms of nominal GDP will become three times bigger than that of USA and nine times bigger than Japan. I think China will reach Japan's economic level in the early 2020s if she maintains the current rate of growth. Then Japan might succumb to apology requests and reluctantly admit their war crimes.

But almost all victims would pass away then, so they couldn't get apology. They don't have enough time. That's why USA is currently the only country that can move unrepentant Japan.

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005, 14:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

#20

Post by Kim Sung » 16 Feb 2007, 11:49

Now the Korean media are sending breaking news on this hearing.

News coverage I

News Coverage II

News Coverage III

News Coverage IV

Image

Three Testifiers at US House of Representative hearing today

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#21

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 16 Feb 2007, 12:23

Kim Sung wrote: But almost all victims would pass away then, so they couldn't get apology. They don't have enough time. That's why USA is currently the only country that can move unrepentant Japan.
Maybe so Kim, but if an apology is extracted from Japan by force or duress, I would have hard time believing it was genuine. It would be improper for me to talk about what I think the Japanese Government will or will not do or why. So I will leave this topic and the esteemed H+WC at that,

Regards,
Chris

caramut
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 12:11
Location: Australia

#22

Post by caramut » 16 Feb 2007, 12:32

ChristopherPerrien wrote:Maybe so Kim, but if an apology is extracted from Japan by force or duress, I would have hard time believing it was genuine.
Force and duress seemed to work alright in getting Japan to surrender.

But there is no suggestion of that here. It's about moral persuasion.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#23

Post by Peter H » 16 Feb 2007, 12:52

The Japanese peace activist/historian Yuki Tanaka addresses the issue of why no postwar convictions resulted from the Comfort Women system:

http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersect ... eview.html

Why did the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal hear mass evidence regarding the ill-treatment, rape and murder of Allied soldiers and civilians and fail to consider evidence of systemic crimes against 'comfort' women? One explanation, Tanaka suggests, is that as most of the 'comfort' women were 'Asian', rather than Western—the largest exception being Dutch women in the Dutch East Indies—the invisibility of the 'comfort' women provides further evidence supporting the 'absence of Asia' remarks often made about the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, where both the aggrieved and those giving justice tended to be Western . Yet Tanaka does not reconcile this argument with earlier discussion regarding the 'various testimonies presented at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal regarding the Rape of Nanjing' . He admits that details regarding the rape of Dutch civilian women in March 1942, for example, were raised at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal but argues this was only to provide evidence that crimes had been committed against Allied civilians (pp. 61-3). A more concrete example of the fixation with Western victims, Tanaka suggests, can be seen in the proceedings of the Batavia War Crimes Tribunal, which was conducted by Dutch authorities in February 1948. In one case this tribunal tried twelve Japanese in relation to the forced prostitution of Dutch women held in internment camps in Semarang, Java in 1943 (p. 76). Although Tanaka does not make it clear, the basis of the Dutch prosecution seemed to be the Geneva Convention of 1929. While not a signatory to the convention, Japan had given a qualified promise to follow the Geneva rules in 1942, one of which prohibited forced prostitution of prisoners-of-war. Disappointingly, Tanaka does not pursue a line of inquiry as to whether Indo-Dutch, Indonesian, Filipino, or perhaps even Korean, 'comfort' women could have had a similar status to the Dutch as prisoners-of-war during this period. He merely notes that the Dutch authorities questioned Indonesian, Indo-Dutch and Chinese 'comfort' women about their experiences in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies but that only two cases involving non-Dutch women were ever raised at the Batavia War Crimes Tribunal (pp. 78-9). While it might be expected that a separate Dutch war crimes inquiry would focus on Dutch women in this manner, Tanaka seems to imbue the Batavia War Crimes Tribunal with responsibility for a regional jurisdiction, to which it failed to respond adequately. It appears to Tanaka, therefore, that the victimisation of predominantly Asian 'comfort' women inevitably took second-place to other war crimes investigated and prosecuted by the Allies.

However, Tanaka's primary argument is that the Allied nations' own 'sexual ideology'—their treatment of non-Western women prior to the war, their practice and attempt to cover-up military-controlled prostitution during the war and their complicity in the establishment of a similar 'comfort' system for Allied personnel during the Occupation in Japan—is a telling factor in the lack of Allied prosecution (p. 87). Regarding the Dutch East Indies, for example, Tanaka argues that as the Dutch sexually exploited large numbers of Indonesian women while a colonial power in the region, it followed that the sexual abuse of Indonesian and Indo-Dutch women by the Japanese would probably not have been viewed by the Dutch as a serious crime (p. 82). During the war itself, Tanaka clarifies that the Allied 'sexual ideology' made it 'quite natural that [the Allies] were completely unable to discern the criminal nature of the comfort women system' (p. 109). As the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of Japan, John Dower, notes in a short review printed on the back of the volume, this is a 'stunning and controversial' new direction of analysis.

Tanaka reserves the bulk of his investigation for the activities of the military forces of the United States, Britain and Australia. He presents new evidence obtained from the United States National Archives to show that the United States deliberated on many of the same issues as Japan's military regarding the control of venereal disease. To curb the spread of the disease, for example, one Inspector General of the United States War Department recommended the establishment of 'supervised houses ... as other countries have done' (p. 89). In the end, the War Department neither promoted nor encouraged this type of military brothel and, indeed, held the official policy of not permitting soldiers to visit prostitutes. However, in central Africa, the Middle East, India and the Caribbean some local commanders went against this policy and designated some houses of prostitution as 'safe' by testing the female inhabitants for venereal disease. In Liberia, for example, soldiers were told not to have relations with any woman in the 'women's villages' that did not bear an official tag verifying her non-infection (p. 92). In testament to this reality, Tanaka alleges that the War Department 'institutionally supported' organised prostitution by supplying prophylactic protection to soldiers—an officer of the United States Medical Corps, for example, estimated prophylactic requirements at four units per month per soldier, a budgetary expense of about US$34 million per year (pp. 88-9). Australia, on the other hand, openly arranged military-controlled brothels in the Middle East, including selecting madams and conducting medical examinations on proposed women (p. 94). Drawing on an official Australian Army report on a newly-established Tripoli brothel, Tanaka comments that the description is 'strikingly similar to the situation of ianjo' (p. 97). While the women were professional prostitutes, he contends that it was still a breach of international law, although which which aspect of customary international law he does not make clear, that in at least one case a sixteen-year-old girl was approved and used as a prostitute by the Australian Army. Tanaka's overall argument in this section is that the engagement of the Allied forces in prostitution was similar to the 'comfort' women system perpetrated by the Japanese and this weakened the Allied nations' ability to perceive any criminality in the 'comfort' women system.

To further make the connection between the Allied nations' 'sexual ideology' and the failure to consider the 'comfort' women system as a war crime, Tanaka raises the issue of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the Allied Occupation against Japanese women. He admits that there is no documentary evidence of 'mass rape by the Allied soldiers' but points to credible oral accounts by Japanese women of rape and assault during this period (p. 110). In one case, for example, Tanaka uses Japanese police intelligence reports from Kanagawa Prefecture to show that nearly every day from the beginning of the Occupation on 30 August 1945 to mid-September that year, cases of rape by Allied soldiers were reported (p. 117). Indeed, General R. L. Eichelberger, commander of the United States' 8th Army, noted in his diary that his very first meeting with General Douglas MacArthur in Japan was not about Japan's surrender but rather about 'rape by marines' (p. 123). Such atrocities were widely feared in Japan, not only by the populace which had been indoctrinated by wartime propaganda to believe that mass rape was a usual characteristic of the immoral 'barbarians', but also by political and bureaucratic leaders. Even before the Occupation began, a vastly similar 'comfort' women system was established in Japan for use by Allied soldiers, staffed by professional Japanese prostitutes and recruited 'volunteers' (p. 138). Tanaka attempts to show that the fact that the Allied nations' expected—if not required—that such a 'comfort' system would be provided for them made it politically expedient for the Allied nations not to prosecute the Japanese for the 'comfort' women system (p. 151).

caramut
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 12:11
Location: Australia

#24

Post by caramut » 16 Feb 2007, 14:26

Peter H

Thanks for that most informative post about Yuri Tanaka.

It raises a whole host of interesting and complex issues about war, general morality, sexual morality, ethnocentricity and lots of other philosophical and legalistic issues.

The most striking thing is in the first few lines
One explanation, Tanaka suggests, is that as most of the 'comfort' women were 'Asian', rather than Western
It has always intrigued me that the tribulations of Allied POW's on the Burma railway are well known and the subject of many publications over the past 60 years while there is almost nothing in Western literature or popular knowledge which even acknowledges the presence of the much larger number of deceived and slave Asian labourers on the same project, let alone their suffering and deaths.

I think there is some confusion in some of the arguments in the comment on Tanaka. For example, the Australian field brothels in the Middle East are well known. I don't recall any suggestion that women in occupied territories were forced into them or raped there. Or maybe they were. For all we know there are Arab women with as good a claim to recognition and compensation from Australia as the Japanese comfort women. But there is no evidence for this, unlike the comfort women. The various references to military suggestions about field brothels and the like do not include anything to suggest that the Allies proposed to enslave women as prostitutes. Until evidence on this is produced the fact remains that comfort women (I hate that term - it softens a terrible reality of repeated daily rape over weeks and months) were victims rather than just prostitutes.

Somewhere on AH there is a thread about soldiers lining up at brothels in Hawaii and the 3 minute shag. The women voluntarily there, although discriminated against by the local police and society, cannot be even remotely equated with sex slaves like the comfort women.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#25

Post by Peter H » 16 Feb 2007, 15:02

I've seen suggestions made that Asian comfort women were more "indentured" than enslaved but I don't know if this is true.Morever being cut off with a bypassed Japanese garrison meant no escape home anyway.

US Intelligence Report 1944

http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/ ... -orig.html
The contract they signed bound them to Army regulations and to war for the "house master " for a period of from six months to a year depending on the family debt for which they were advanced ...

Louis Allen's Burma:The Longest War
The collection of the girls was carried out in Japan by officially authorized traders who used Army funds. The price paid for a girl was 1000 yen, so after she had earned this sum she was theoretically free to return. At 2 yen per soldier, this meant freedom after 500 men....
Allen further states in Burma:
The Burmese girls, and the Indian girls,stayed behind when the Japanese surrendered and simply plied their trade for the Allied troops when they moved into Tenasserim, according to Senda Natsumitsu.Besides Moulmein, there were comfort houses in Meiktila, Mandalay, Rangoon,Toungoo, and Pyinmana. In most of them the proportion of girls was ten Koreans, four Burmese, two Indians and Chinese and Japanese 0.8. How Senda arrives at his fraction for the Japanese is not clear, but Japanese girls were for the use of officers only. The girls were usually around twenty years old, though in the early days one medical officer complained to headquarters that prostitutes who had reached the limits of their usefulness in Japan were being sent abroad as ianfu and he insisted that the troops of the Imperial Army were entitled to the very best.

Allen implies that except for the Korean girls,the rest were professional prostitutes.The Japanese ones did stand by the troops:
When the tide of battle turned against the Japanese, the comfort girls were often trapped in beleaguered garrisons,and although they were told they were not under military command and could leave, the preferred to stick it out, witht he soldiers. In the fighting in Yunnan in September 1944, where the garrison at Lament was finally reduced to eighty men, who decided to commit suicide, the Japanese comfort girls said to their Korean counterparts: "You should escape from here. You owe no duty to Japan, so save your own lives and return to your country. You are orientals as they are, so the Chinese soldiers won't harm you. We are going to stay behind with our soldiers." The Korean girls waved white cloths and went out to surrender. The Japanese girls swallowed the potassium cyanide with which the troops killed themselves, and the Chinese found seven Japanese female corpses among the dead they took the town.

The girls in Myitkyina were luckier. Just before it fell, the garrison commander had rafts built and sent the wounded and the comfort girls to safety down the Irrawaddy.


I guess nothing is black nor white,especially on this issue.Most suffered involuntarily but some weren't really victims.

caramut
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 12:11
Location: Australia

#26

Post by caramut » 16 Feb 2007, 16:19

Peter H wrote:I guess nothing is black nor white,especially on this issue.Most suffered involuntarily but some weren't really victims.
That's probably the guts of it.

There were all sorts of social and military systems involved on the Japanese side that were foreign, and incomprehensible, to Allied soldiers and civilians.

We judge Japanese actions now by (usually contemporary) Western standards. If things had turned out differently those actions would be judged by Japanese standards. The problem with this is, of course, to presume that there was any consensus on 'Japanese standards' as if they were all brutal bastards when there are many examples to the contrary.

The motivations for a better life which impelled Asians to do all sorts of things under Nippon were incomprehensible to Westerners who had much better material lives, not to mention entirely different notions of family and national obligation.

I've had a bit to do with both victims and offenders in rape matters and in a very small numer of cases it seems that there was confused understanding of signals in the same event. An extreme example would be the 16 to 18 year old rebellious girl from a posh private school who gets into an outlaw bike gang and is surprised to be rooted by several blokes after consensual sex with her chosen mate. She thought she was agreeing to just one act but the code of the gang is that she's on for all. Nobody broke any law that applied to them. Which, so far as the Japanese were concerned, probably applied to their use of so-called comfort women, enslaved or not.
Last edited by caramut on 16 Feb 2007, 16:24, edited 2 times in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#27

Post by David Thompson » 16 Feb 2007, 16:26

A post from Penn44, which added nothing of value to the topic under discussion, and a now unnecessary response from Kim Sung, were deleted by the moderator. -- DT.

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005, 14:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

#28

Post by Kim Sung » 16 Feb 2007, 16:30

Peter H wrote:Allen implies that except for the Korean girls,the rest were professional prostitutes.
This is totally not true. Jan Ruff O’Herne's case shows that Allen's view is wrong.

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005, 14:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

#29

Post by Kim Sung » 16 Feb 2007, 16:38

Jan Ruff O’Herne's story

* Image Source : 위안부 리포트 ('Comfort Women Report')

Image

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005, 14:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

#30

Post by Kim Sung » 16 Feb 2007, 16:47

According to the above comic, Dutch comfort women including O'Herne were interned in a brothel named 'The House of Seven Oceans' (七大洋館) and were photographed before they were raped by Japanese soldiers for three months.

They were transferred to a civilian camp three months later and threatened to be executed if they reveal what they suffered in the brothel to their compatriots in the camp.

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”