Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Should crimes after war have a different burden of proof? Do Okinawans and
> > Japanese have to step forward to testify in a court of law to have their
> > individual accusations investigated and judged before condemning US service
> > personnel the way Japanese are condemned as a people or criticized for their
> > history?
>
> Well, after WWII, the chinese set up a court and had a trial about the
> events in Nanking, to judge and make sure about what had happened.

Did they hear from the families of each of the victims, to arrive at their
300,000 number? Were they cross examined? Was it investigated and tried case by
case, as it has been suggested wartime or postwar rapes in Japan should be? Why
should Japanese accusers of any wrongdoing of Americans face a different burden
of proof? I have no problem whatsoever if the world follows the Chinese count of
300,000 deaths or [unknown number] of systematic rapes.

> So why would we not do at least the same before condemning the american
> invasion of Okinawa ?

I'm not condemning the US invasion of Okinawa. I wouldn't have condemned an
invasion of the mainland, either, as an alternative to firebombing or dropping
the A-bombs. But what I have seen of US footage shown in Japanese documentary or
what I have heard in Okinawa leave me disturbed by methods used.

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can
shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"