Talk:Tanaka Memorial

Pathetic wiki propaganda
Blaming it on the USSR or China with no references. Sigh, wiki really is a joke.-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.22 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your help、everyone. It became much better. What wonderful system Wikipedia is!! Kadzuwo 11:53、8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I started copy editing to improve the idiomatic English; someone might want to review whether the sense has been changed too much in a couple of places. I don't claim any expertise on the subject matter.

But I made the unfortunate mistake of looking at the 5 Web pages referred to、and then looking a little further. On both sides、they tend to be the sort of propaganda you find on Web pages、depressingly full of invective and void of content. Can nothing better be found? (I suppose the document really is a fake、based on the quotes from Kawakami&mdash;but 1932? Are there no recent sources? What was really said at the Tokyo trials?&mdash;as distinct from partisan paraphrases of what was said)

It's particularly not-comforting to see Tanaka-denial、as we may call it、linked voluntarily by its own advocates with Nanking denial、which is about as credible as Holocaust denial. Those wanting to make a case that's convincing to the rest of the world will have to try harder. Dandrake 23:46、Apr 5、2004 (UTC)
 * Holocuast/Nanking deniers and Zion/Tanaka proponents all fall into the same category. The former suffer from willful ignorance of evidences.  The later suffer from willful ignorance of the lack of evidences. :-) FWBOarticle

A note on my latest revision: "some conspiracy theorist" isn't really encyclopedic language、it seems to me. As long as we don't have good citations、we're stuck with weasel wording and passive voices. Actually、I don't see what's offensive or conspiracy-theoretical about the statement that the document didn't have to exist for its policies to be carried out; with respect to East Asia policy、there seems to be agreement that it didn't exist、and its policies were carried out. I may be missing something here. Dandrake 18:27、Aug 5、2004 (UTC)


 * Well、(1) Tanaka Memorial is a forgery. (2) Japan's intent for global domination is a conspiracy theory.  If you want to assert Japan's ambition to Asia、you don't need TM. The vast quantity of historical archives support this.  Only use of TM is to extend that to Japan's ambition for "global" domination、something which is not supported by historians.  Therefore、anyone who try to add credence to Tanaka Memorial is a conspirarcy theorists、something which the above mentioned sentence is aiming at.  Trying doing the same in Zion Protocol as in line of you don't need Protocol to show that Jew's intent for global domination given that "some" policy listed there are carried out. You will be immediately blanded as Anti Semite.  If you want NPOV、delete the whole issue about credibility of TM's implication about Japan's intent. It is a theory derived from forgery.  Leave it at that.  FWBOarticle

I have deleted external links - "These sites deny the authenticity of the documents.". The sites content is very sectarian. The claim that TM is forgery can be attributed to much authentic and impartial accademic level. Listing of such low quality links is more likely to help perception that TM is authentic. What I'm saying that to accredit the forgery claim to such low level source would be against NPOV of the site. I would suggest that someone find bit better external links.


 * This is very odd. Given that you've retained the pro-authenticity sites、are you telling us that these are not low quality?? In fact、encyclopedia.com、though its article is not very informative、is at least a respectable source、unlike any of the other ones that you've deleted or the ones that you've not deleted; it at least lets the reader confirm that dismissal of the document as a forgery is not an invention of some guy on Wikipedia but is actually a generally held position. I'm a bit mystified by all this. Dandrake 07:04、Aug 17、2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly、encyrcopedia.com is not an appropriate reference or external link. We might as well have encycropedia.com reference for every corresponding wikipedia article.
 * We might、but that would be pretty stupid when there are better references. In this case、however、it's the only one that anyone has found that isn't just junk. So my argument stands: it serves to show a new and entirely uninformed reader that the claim is not just somebody's imagination&mdash;claims too often are、on the Internet and even in Wikipedia. Your claim that it's pointless is useless. Dandrake 19:42、Aug 17、2004 (UTC)
 * It is totally pointless reference. Secondly、the dismissal argument can be、for example、refered to "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" where、for the fist time、the number of obvious factual contradiction in the TM has been pointed out.
 * Great! How soon can you put up a link to it? Dandrake 19:42、Aug 17、2004 (UTC) [More to follow; I need to check this in before doing a bit of research.]
 * Lastly、the other so called denial argument all appear to has Japanese nationalist propaganda. They all blame TM as Chinese propaganda which is not an established/definte historical fact.  One site has statement like "The conclusion (regard to Japanese Manchurian conquest) was peaceful and announced to the world.、Activity in Manchuria was opened to the all world peoples in this conclusion.".  Who ever put up these link appear to had intention of attributing the denial argument to Japanese historical revisionist which obviously help to descredit argument that TM is forgery. That、i do not think fit into NPOV policy of this site.
 * And your point is&mdash;? No one has questioned the removal of those junk referenceas from the article. I heartily disagree、however、with your idea that we should figure out the motives of the person who inserted the text、and decide that the motives must be bad、and decide that therefore we should delete the text. The fact that those references were junk is enough、without working out plots (almost conspiracy theories) of why they were put there. By the way、you can look at the History and find out who put those lines in、and when. You just might find out (I'll place a small bet) that they were inserted by someone who believed in them、a sort of Tanaka-denial、Nanking-denial nationalist.
 * As of the quality of people who assert that TM is not forgery、the main article already attribute such claim as consipiracy theory. So whether the site is high or low is pretty much irrelevant. FWBOarticle 12:20、17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * (As to the quality of thosae people、the article asserts that they're conspiracy theorists、which is quite unnecessary POV no matter what you say it is).
 * So anyway、why did you leave them in? Maybe to discredit the other side by showing that it publishes junk?
 * According to what you just said、people on the other side have put up bad arguments for your side in order to make your side look bad (to look like Japanese nationalists). Now you are leaving bad arguments for the other side instead of deleting them with the other junk. Is your idea that you'll make the other side look bad? In plain English、are you doing exactly the thing of which you accuse the other side?
 * When you get right down to it、what about the fact that nobody has yet produced a Web site that convincingly argues the case for forgery? That makes the case for forgery look bad! I don't say the document was real; just that the case looks bad to someone reading the article. You could fix that today: put up a good reference. Dandrake 20:14、Aug 17、2004 (UTC)
 * Let see. Firstly、the fact of TM's forgery is a well established fact.  So people who wish to claim some authenticity of TM fall into hisotrical revisionst、i.e. those who are willing to ignore or distort historical evidence for whatever political ideology they support.  Conecting the argument that TM is forgery to this type of group is wrong attribution.  Connectiong the argument that TM is authentic to this type of group is correct attribution.  However、if you don't like it、feel free to delet it.  I don't really care either way.  As of nobody produced a Web site that convincigly argue the case、that is because TM is quite minor forgery compared to the Protocol.  If you want to find convincing and offical proof for the forgery、feel free to go to library and find out the record of Tokyo War Crime Tribunal.  TM was submitted as an evidence for the charge that japan together with germany and italy conspired for the world conquest.  It was there that TM's credibility was blown. The case was well argued and presented.  I personally don't feel like wasting my precious time but you may need to do exactly that.   You may not be aware but information tend to be much more reliable and detalied outside the web.  Oh、and it appear that you somewhat appear to be hoping that TM is somewhat true or that there is some truth to TM's claim but being too smart to be ridiculued for being a historical revisionist、you aren't quite prepared to take such position.  Too bad.

Removed all the Web links except the one that is not simply partisan garbage. Removed harping on Protocols、which insults the intelligence of the reader by assuming that he doesn't know that old malicious nonsense tends to go on circulating forever; something on this point might be put back in、though. "Conspiracy theorists" is name-calling that (even if true) adds nothing whatever to the information value of the article. Dandrake 20:38、Aug 17、2004 (UTC)
 * Since you removed the counter argument、I will remove the original charge that TM is authentic which is also garbage. You can't have it either way. So Japan attempting global domination is no longer a consipraicy theory、is it?  Does this means it is a historical "theory" worthy of discussion by academic historian? Is Jew's attempt to global domination a consipraicy theory or a supposition in history?  I don't mind history.  I do mind if someone has some issue (hopefully not racial) which is thinly disguised as historical argument.  Attributing "TM=authentic" argument with anything other than consipracy theory or historical revisionist camp would be incorrect、IMO.  FWBOarticle 03:04、18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Exactly where did I remove the argument against the claims that the thing is authentic? I did remove pointers to the claims of authenticity; this is not exactly like removing an argument against them、is it? Or do you believe that calling it "conspiracy theory" is a counter argument? I have a different idea of what constitutes an argument&mdash;in the logical sense that is; if you prefer "argument" meaning "shouting match"、that would explain it. Dandrake 01:24、Aug 23、2004 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy argument: "Some conspiracy theorits state that、although the reality of the Tanaka Memorial is questionable、its stated policies were clearly carried out by the Japanese forces during the war one by one; it has even been said that the Tanaka Memorial didn't have to exist for its stated policies to have been carried out. "
 * Counter argument: "However、the same argument can be applied to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
 * You have sabotaged the counter argument on pretext of deleting mention of the Protocol. The counter argument clearly refer to the Protocol and the argument legitimating Jewish conspiracy based on the protocoal as false. You can restore it to the original or you can forget about the whole issue.  The current one only mention about the facts and it looks very neat.FWBOarticle 04:22、23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chinese communist scholars in spring 2006 acknowledged Chinese propagandism to Japanese historians、which was widely broadcasted by media in Japan. If the "Tanaka Memorandum (Memorial)" did not exist as he said、"Japanese large-scale invasion plans"、is totally baseless、because it was the sole document that backed up the conspiracy theory. See below.

Director Jiang Li-feng、Institute of Japanese Studies、Chinese Academy of Social Sciences、speaking to Japanese historians visiting China in early 2006. "...I felt scolars in Japan must learn much more about Chinese history. For example、someone talked about Tanaka Memorandum earlier. But actually、it has increasingly become a mainstream opinion among Chinese historians to think that Tanaka Memorandum in fact did not exist. Do you have knowledge in Japan、about such achievement of ours in history research?"

POV
Stating that it is a forgery is too POV. There are still many people believing that it is NOT a forgery, even though evidence suggested that it is so. As two of the external links provided DID suggest that it is factual, the article should at least include such 'suggestions'. Also, some parts of the document is actually corresponding to true Japanese ideas, so the article is quite misleading. Herunar 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In HK, many of us has brainwashed by Chinese History textbook in secondary school. At that age we do not know how to counter fight against forgery in the textbook. So many of us believing that it is NOT a forgery. That is true. However, It comes out the plenty of evidence that it is a forgery. Then it rightful and NPOV to claim it is a forgery whenever evidence is provided.

It does not matter whether Japan wish to invade China. It does not matter whether Japan did invaded China later. It does not matter even if Tanaka has this invasion in his mind. It is a forgery if the original text (should be Japanese) does not exist and has never been written. Any effort to prove that Tanaka has this invasion in his mind is completely misguided at best. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dissent
Cut from the page:


 * The Tanaka Memorial is now、according to excessively reliable documentors and historians、to be an authentic and sound political ambition.


 * And is testament of failed Japanese Imperialistic Expansionism.

Such comments need to include references、to those who hold the Memorial to be genuine. (Equally、it would be very good to have supporting references for the opinion that it is a forgery). Charles Matthews 08:52、16 January 2006 (UTC)

NOT forgery
The Tanaka Memorial is definitely NOT a forgery. Every Chinese History textbook mentions about the Tanaka Memorial in the second Sino-Japanese War section. Also、I've seen the Jap version of Tanaka Memorial in a video about the war. --- Mdwav 2:08、 12 Feb 2006 (UTC+8)


 * You need to find a very good、scholarly opinion on this. Then we can include that in the article. Charles Matthews 19:43、11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm、that say more about chinese history textbook than about japanese. :D FWBOarticle 20:09、11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've found the screenshot of Tenaka Memorial in the video produced by Taiwan、named 《一寸河山一寸血》. Screenshot

The video says: When the Tanaka Cabinet held the "Eastern Conference" in 1927、Tanaka confirmed the procedure of invading China. The highlighted words read "In order to take over the world、you need to take over China; In order to take over China、you need to take over Manchuria and Mongolia." I don't think the screenshot can be a forgery、since it was clearly printed material and Japan won't deliberately print it again after the war; China won't print it too because she has already reproduced the Chinese version to the Chinese people. The only explanation is Tanaka Memorial is indeed a real and genuine memorial. --- Mdwav 4:52、 12 Feb 2006 (UTC+8)


 * We need more than that、though. Charles Matthews 23:39、11 February 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise、it is true that many factions in japanese military especially within Kantougun did hold opinion that coquest of manchuria is a pretext of conquring China. And Quite few documents of this kind (i.e. let take over china) exists. Tanaka memorial is generally regarded as forgery of "addition" (of global conquest) and "misatribution" (to Tanaka). Given that it worked as propaganda、hat off to Chinese. ;P FWBOarticle 01:17、12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK、but should we add the screenshot to the article? --- Mdwav 19:41、 12 Feb 2006 (UTC+8)
 * I don't think it is a good idea. Wikipedia is not an archive.  Photo mostly serve decorative purpose to the main article.  What I can suggest is for you to create a separate artcile which is wikilinked to this page.  You can summarise or describe the screenshot in this separate article and add the link under "external link" section.  By the way、I read your profile. Interesting mix of Chinese nationalism and anti communism.  Do many people in HK think like that? FWBOarticle 12:27、12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope、not many people in HK are interested in politics. I desire my country to be reunified、but I'm also very frustrated with the nature of the chinese communists. I have always liked the Kuomintang more after studying Chinese History、lol. Mdwav 17:03、13 February 2006 (UTC+8)

Well if you think that it is a forgery、how do you explain this?
I was researching the life of the late Herbert W. Armstrong for a new media book when I came across your discussion here and a most interesting article published in February 1934 about the Tanaka Memorial: http://www.coghomeschool.org/site/cog_archives/plain_truth/1934/02%20February%201934.pdf.

This reference is to the pdf copy of the February 1934 edition of 'The Plain Truth' magazine、volume one、number one and this is what it says on the front page: "The amazing Tanaka Memorial recently discovered ..." So now we can move the date back to 1934. Not only that、but Herbert W. Armstrong in later life became great friends with many in the Japanese Diet、including prime ministers and he also had a relationship with the brother of the late Hirohito.

I believe that this entry moves the goal posts back quite a long way towards 1927. = JLRI、February 11、2006

Easiest way to check the authencity of the memorial is to do "find" with "山縣有朋" in text format. A dead guy can't attend a treaty negotiation. I re-worded reference to Chinese textbook. It states that the memorial is mentioned without clarifying it as a forgery. As I said、it says more about the nature of the current Communist policy than about Japanese national policy during WWII. FWBOarticle 23:25、12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * your link is broken, BTW. If it's my PC, I apologise. Ecth (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Link works fine on my mac over a year later. It was your PC.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Link works fine on my PC --Friend2008 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromised article
The main section of this article has become a poorly written cauldron of back-and-forth arguing. One side of it cites the jp wikipedia and the other a bunch of dead links. It is made of fail and needs rewriting to include cited opinions on the Memorial's authenticity or lack thereof. 213.243.160.224 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed. Let's get editing! :) Ecth (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

References!
If anyone is reading this and has supplies one of the FIVE statements in the article then please cite references

Or better yet, replace them with reliable, well referenced statements, as I intend to when I can find any on the net (surprisingly difficult) Ecth (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note for Editors
On January 1, 2008, a Japanese newspaper Tokyo Shimbun reported that a Chinese historian group admitted that this "Tanaka Memorial" had been lower reliability and suggested that the most of the Chinese historians regard the document as a forgery, in a collaborative research meeting held in September 2007. I don't understand why some users insistently edit this article and make an erroneous assertion. 220.219.92.222 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In this article, it claims forgery twice, but without source. If no source, these two sentences should be removed: "Almost all academic historians now regard the Memorial as a forgery." "However, most Japanese and western historians, contend that the document is a forgery."

"Note 11" cites page 8 of "Schecter : How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History 2002". This is a book published in 2002. It is not known how much weight the allegation on page 8 carries. It is not shown that Leona Schecter has another role other than the book author. If it merely relied on the Soviet spymaster Pavel Sudoplatov (as he mentioned in the Preface), it should be stated as such.

What "Tokyo Shimbun reported"  links to "The page you're looking for was not found " page of "Tokyoweb" Friend2008 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientology
I rather think that the mention of Scientology on this page is utterly irrelevant to the article.


 * It's an example of the influence of the idea of the Tanaka Memorial persisting for decades... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any relationship between the Tanaka Memorial and the "Tenyaka Memorial" other than a superficial phoenitic similiarity. If there is a relationship, it should be elaborated upon in the article, if not, the Hubbel references should be deleted. --MChew (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The relationship was an association of ideas in Hubbard's brain only; however, the "Tenyaka Memorial" is a moderately significant concept in the history of Scientology, and Hubbard clearly derived it from his remembering (or misremembering) of the Tanaka Memorial. AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section because Hubbel's fantasy had nothing to do with the 1930s' China, Japan and the coming WW2. A proper way to deal with this issue is to put it in Hubbel's own entry. "Ron Hubbel believed that Blah Blah (possibly based on the Tanaka Memorial) was a secret group Blah Blah ..." -- Toytoy (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
This sentence has a vague antecedent; the reference does not at all support the idea that most scholars "rank" the Tanaka Memorial (whatever that means) between the one hoax and the Protocols. It doesn't even explain what it means for it to be ranked like that, and frankly I believe does not add anything to the article, so I am removing it again. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Memorial"?
The name seems rather odd to me. Is it typical in Japan for a planning document to be called a "memorial"? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered the same. From its description in the article, it sounds more like a memorandum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.255.22 (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Any update on this? The name really seems wrong. --Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The purported document is a "memorial" in the sense of a memorial to the throne (上奏文), which was indeed quite common for military documents in Imperial-era Japan, see for instance 近衛上奏文 (1945). You'd be right to be skeptical about its content and style which is bizarre for a memorial - because, as historians now agree, it's a hoax document. In any case the translation "Tanaka Memorial" had been used by English translations of this fake document since 1934, so historical texts follow this translation. Ceconhistorian (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What to call it
Is is


 * a) The Tanaka Memorial
 * b) The "Tanaka Memorial"
 * c) The Tanaka Memorial

I would say that its apparent length suggests option b, but all are used in the article interchangeably, which cannot be correct.

2600:1004:B12C:C5D7:78AC:D0B0:2F22:3ED4 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead and "most scholars"
I added Iris Chang's report that Chinese textbooks took the memorial to be authentic but that John Dower concluded that "most scholars" did not. In order to test Dower's reliability, I did a search of Google Books for "Tanaka Memorial" HERE, and could not find any scholarly books based on research in Japanese or use of Japanese sources that found the memorial to be authentic. I may have missed one, but it is clear that Dower is being conservative in saying "most" scholars.ch (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following the reasoning here...
"In 1939, Peter Fleming claimed to have produced an ‘update’ to the Tanaka Memorial, by writing an imaginary report on a secret Allied strategy conference attended by Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek, and having it leaked to the Japanese. This indicates that the Tanaka Memorial was known to be a forgery by the British prior to World War II." Just because a British writer came up with the idea of a false follow up to this document doesn't necessarily mean that he (or the British in general) considered the Tanaka Memorial to be false itself. --Khajidha (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree; the update claim doesn't “indicate” any such thing. Does anyone know what the source actually says? Does it make this claim/connection, or is that just an interpretation that has been added here?
 * Also, in what way was Fleming's document an “update”? He was making a report on an Allied conference, not Tanaka's. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Scope
One problem with this article is that it focuses on the Tanaka Memorial being a forgery, and rather skates over the point that it accurately reflected Japanese thinking as regards China and the rest of east Asia at the time. Also, how far away from that thinking was the world domination aspect, (which it's suggested somewhere) was just an embellishment by the forger? By 1940 (before the Pacific war had even started) they had their Hakko Ichiu policy (“the eight corners of the world under one roof”); a fair indication of the breadth of their ambition. If, as is probable, the Tanaka Memorial was a statement of Japanese ambition in an easily digestible form by someone's Intelligence agency, how much of the "world domination" bit was an embellishment, and how much was sober fact? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This statement in the article is meaningless:
"When the Allies searched for incriminating documents to support war crime charges following the surrender of Japan, no drafts or copies of anything corresponding to the Tanaka Memorial appeared among them; a Japanese language "original" has never been produced despite extensive research efforts." This proves or disproves nothing. If such a statement is going to be made in this article, it needs to add the elaboration that it is well-known and well-documented that, during the period between the emporer's speech of August 15, 1945, and the actual landing of American troops in mainland Japan about 10 days later, the Japanese government was furiously destroying documents related to the war. Even Japanese authors who were eyewitnesses have written about the "huge bonfires" of military-related papers and orders. If the Tanaka Memorial did exist -- as it or something very similar likely did -- it would be no surprise at all that every trace of it would have been burned in August 1945. The absence of an extant copy is almost to be expected, not any kind of evidence that it never existed!Starhistory22 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Roosevelt
Is there any evidence that he read this document? I noticed on Veterans Today article https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/06/16/nanking-massacre-interview-with-arimasa-kubo-and-moteki-hiromichi-part-ii/ purports that Shoichi Watanabe made this claim:
 * “Before the US-Japan war, a false document called ‘Tanaka Memorial’ was written in China. This was a purported Japanese strategic planning document, in which Prime Minister Giichi Tanaka laid out for Emperor Hirohito a strategy to take over the world.
 * “President Roosevelt, senators and congressmen read this forgery, and believed the lie that Japan had a malicious intention to take over Asia and the world. That became a cause for the US-Japan war. It is said that after reading it, Roosevelt decided to defeat Japan entirely. Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking, a best seller in the USA, is the same.”

If Watanabe did write that, does any evidence exist to support this claim? 70.51.193.44 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)