![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 27, 2011, June 27, 2014, and June 27, 2016. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photographbeincluded in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Japan may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
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)[reply]
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—but 1932? Are there no recent sources? What was really said at the Tokyo trials?—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)
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)
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.
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)
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—in the logical sense that is; if you prefer "argument" meaning "shouting match"、that would explain it. Dandrake 01:24、Aug 23、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?"
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cut from the page:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
On January 1, 2008, a Japanese newspaper Tokyo Shimbun reported[1] 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)[reply]
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" [2] links to "The page you're looking for was not found " page of "Tokyoweb" Friend2008 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think that the mention of Scientology on this page is utterly irrelevant to the article.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 May 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
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)[reply]
Is is
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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:
If Watanabe did write that, does any evidence exist to support this claim? 70.51.193.44 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]