Akiko Takenaka has written an article entitled, “Japanese Memories
of the Asia-Pacific War: Analyzing the Revisionist Turn Post-1995,” for The Asia-Pacific Journal. In it she examines
the different interpretations of the responsibility for
the Second World War. The Japanese people have been
criticized because they have not been sufficiently contrite about their role in
the war. The article attempts to
explain their various positions.
The conflict between those wanting to emphasize Japan’s guilt and
those who want to minimize it reflects the almost universal breakdown on the
matter of collective guilt. As
Takenaka says “war memory has become a political position.” An accurate account of what actually
took place has fallen victim to political agendas.
Crimes were committed.
Japanese historians should record those crimes. They are part of Japan’s history. Revisionist historians argue that history
books must present a picture that Japanese youths can be proud of. It should not be necessary to
“whitewash” the history books. Even
youths realize that crimes have been committed by all nations. However, a balanced account of what
transpired does not fit with the progressive agenda. Crimes must be highlighted. The people of each nation must be made to feel guilty for
events in their history. An
incredibly thorough job has been done in Germany using the world wars and the
holocaust. The people of the
United States must bear the burden of slavery and the murder of the indigenous
people. Guilt is an incredibly
lucrative industry. Should
Caucasian American be held responsible for slavery if the parents or
grandparents migrated to the United States after the Emancipation
Proclamation. Should they feel
guilty for the plight of a Nigerian who just migrated to the U.S. simply
because of his race?
Takenaka points out that the ways the Asia-Pacific War was depicted
in Japanese textbooks caused tensions between Japan and its East Asian
neighbors. The level of hostility
is remarkably high considering the length of time involved. A member of the Japanese Lower House,
Takaichi Sanae, born in 1961, has been in the forefront of efforts to deny
responsibility for the war by people born after 1945. This is the position of individuals who believe in
individual responsibility as opposed to collective responsibility. Sanae’s position is opposed by Carol
Gluck, a holocaust researcher.
Gluck argues it takes more than the top political and military leaders,
therefore all Japanese bear some responsibility. It is easy to condemn people from the comfort of our living
room. There were people who stood
up and protested the actions of their despotic governments. In the case of Nazi Germany, the name of 22 year old
Sophie Scholl comes to mind. She was executed in 1943.
Controversy has arisen by people paying official tribute at Yasukuni
Shrine. This is where the spirits
of all military dead from modern Japan including fourteen war criminals are
memorialized. In the majority of
towns and cities of the American South there are monuments to the fallen from
the Civil War. There is a movement
to remove these monuments. Defenders
of their Confederate heritage are condemned as racist for opposing this.
Do the traditionalist have a point. They would like to portray Japan a victim and as the
liberator of Asia from Western imperialism. In some respects this is true. Japanese occupation was not always as barbaric as it is
portrayed. Chinese actually
migrated to Manchukuo during the Japanese occupation. However, trying to make it appear as a benevolent policy is
stretching it. The argument that Japan fought the war of self-defense might
have some validity in the case of its relations with the U.S. The Roosevelt administration was well
aware that cutting off Japan’s oil supply would lead to war. Their crime in China pale in comparison
to the murderous policies of the Mao regime. The Japanese are condemned for their practice of providing
“comfort women” for their troops.
It is a natural human trait to minimize the significance of crimes
one is responsible for.
Progressives are more than willing to condemn the crimes of the U.S. and
Japan when they were under less progressive rule. Are they willing to condemn progressive regimes? Apparently not. They have successfully deleted numerous
crimes from the history books.
Progressives have consistently underestimated the number of
fatalities in the air war and the fact that this war was directed at the
civilian population. In Europe is
was known as the Lindemann Plan.
Takenaka gives a figure of approximately 330,000 people killed in the
air war over Japan. This is a
bogus figure. The casualty figures
for Hiroshima range from 90,000 to 146,000. The figures for Nagasaki are 39,000 to 80,000. The fire bombing of Tokyo resulted in
100,000 deaths according to American and Japanese authorities. Wikipedia claims, “both may have had
reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll.” That would mean a total of 326,000 fatalities for three
cities leaving the fatalities from nearly 197 cities uncounted. There is no mention in Western history
book on the slave labor provision in the Morgenthau Plan and the Yalta
Agreement. There is no mention of
the engineered famine in Europe after the war. The Western allies did not establish barbaric comfort
stations, instead through their economic policies they converted all Axis women
into prostitutes. The Roosevelt
administration was complicit in the Katyn Forest Massacre coverup. The list of embarrassing acts is as
long the Japanese.
Finally, Takenaka mentions Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
which prohibits the Japanese military from going to war. It is a product of the postwar belief
that Germany and Japan were uniquely aggressive and should be disarmed. This delusional view only lasted a
short time before the West was begging the Germans to rearm. Article 9 has been
very successful for Japan only because the United States ensures it
safety. As the U.S. withdraws from
Asia Japan had better make efforts to defend itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment