(August 7, 2016 at 8:04 am)Jello Wrote: Bismark is as loose an association to the nazis as you can get. It's the name of a way pre-nazi dude, and the ship was built way before they came to power, at least as far as i remember.

The Bismark was laid down in 1936, three-plus years after Hitler's appointment.

(August 7, 2016 at 12:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 7, 2016 at 8:04 am)Jello Wrote: Bismark is as loose an association to the nazis as you can get. It's the name of a way pre-nazi dude, and the ship was built way before they came to power, at least as far as i remember.

The Bismark was laid down in 1936, three-plus years after Hitler's appointment.

Oh, fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up, i couldn't actually remember. Still doesn't change the fact that a new bismark is not a reference back to the nazis, still just one to the guy himself.

(August 7, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 7, 2016 at 7:38 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: The exact analogue all applies to Japan.

(August 7, 2016 at 7:55 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: So don't give me the crap about the second not being additional evidence for the legitimacy of the concerns raised by the first, or was not likely done specifically to reinforce the domestic political impact of the first.

The Japanese have been reusing the names of WWII-era ships since 1956, with the Yukikaze. Haruna and Hiei were DDHs commissioned in the 70s, Kongo-class DDs came in service in the 90s.

Given the 50-year policy of reusing these names, I'm highly skeptical that the change in their submarine-naming convention is evidence of anything other than, well, a change in their naming convention.

Destroyer and cruiser names are much more mundane and less evocative then names of capital ships. So Japanese destroyer names were never controversial. The case with Kongo, Haruna and Hiei is a little murky. These were names of ships that were built as battlecruisers before WWI, and only reclassified as battleships before WWII. When they were first named, ships like these were still considered by major navies as successors to armored cruisers, and were not really regarded as full fledged capitalships. Their names were thus cruiser names. Only later in service were they upgraded to a still considerably sub-battleship standard, and were called fast battleships out of courtesy.

None of that addresses my point, which is that using Soryu for a submarine, or other WWII names for other ships, is not evidence of resurgent militarism.

(August 7, 2016 at 12:32 pm)Jello Wrote:

(August 7, 2016 at 12:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The Bismark was laid down in 1936, three-plus years after Hitler's appointment.

Oh, fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up, i couldn't actually remember. Still doesn't change the fact that a new bismark is not a reference back to the nazis, still just one to the guy himself.

Here is a example of a sensitive name selection whose intentions can be open debate. One could signal the acceptance of an clean break with the past and avoid names that could be controversial, or one could intentionally chose a predictably controversial name at a controversial time. The Japanese chose the later.

There is no clear and fast rule. There is only continuous shades of gray. But the general perception in East Asia is Japan has been sliding ever closer to the black side of the gray scale since the 1990s.

(August 7, 2016 at 1:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: None of that addresses my point, which is that using Soryu for a submarine, or other WWII names for other ships, is not evidence of resurgent militarism.

These names are definitely used more often and more freely since the late 1980s. Coupled with visits to Yusukuni shrine, government mandated revision of textbooks to gloss over Japan's role in WWII, and the efforts to reinterpret the legal framework imposed at the end of WWII as a bulwark against militarism, the whole certain suggest a systematic effort to condition the Japanese public to revile militarism less, and accept it more.

Perhaps with the other stuff, but as pointed out above, they've been recycling WWII-era ship names for five decades. I don't think the shift in naming convention has the same significance you seem to think it has.

(August 7, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: One could signal the acceptance of an clean break with the past and avoid names that could be controversial, or one could intentionally chose a predictably controversial name at a controversial time.  The Japanese chose the later.  

Which ship-name do you find controversial? More to the point, which ship-name has prompted any protest from any other country?

(August 7, 2016 at 2:07 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Perhaps with the other stuff, but as pointed out above, they've been recycling WWII-era ship names for five decades. I don't think the shift in naming convention has the same significance you seem to think it has.

(August 7, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: One could signal the acceptance of an clean break with the past and avoid names that could be controversial, or one could intentionally chose a predictably controversial name at a controversial time.  The Japanese chose the later.  

Which ship-name do you find controversial? More to the point, which ship-name has prompted any protest from any other country?

Naming any modern warship of any of the 6 carriers that took part in Th Pearl Harbor attack certainly is likely to raise eyebrows in east Asia.  In addition, resurrecting the names of any of the historically significant battleships that marked symbolic steps Japan took to attempt to achieve naval supremacy in the pacific between 1914 and 1941, such as Ise, hyuga, Nagato, Mutsu, Yamato and musashi, would also raise eyebrows.   Reusing these names are an indication, not in themselves a protestable action.  One does not protest the indication.  But it would be digested as further indication confirming perceived progress towards an worrying end, and more immediately it would contribute to heightening tensions.

Perhaps. Or they could simply be honoring tradition like all other navies?

(August 7, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Perhaps. Or they could simply be honoring tradition like all other navies?

Yeah. And regardless, you're gonna name your ships something that has some weight to it, nobody is gonna be scared of the USS Cuddleboat, are they? : if something named Haruna was coming my way, i'd know which direction to run; AWAY.