Japan's pacifism 'needs revision'

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"Japan's former air force chief has said the country should revise its pacifist constitution.

Gen Toshio Tamogami, recently sacked for denying that Japan was an aggressor in World War II, was giving evidence to a parliamentary enquiry.

Japan's constitution was written after the country's defeat in 1945 and promises the country's will never again engage in a war.

Some Japanese nationalists believe this compromises the country's status.

Gen Tamogami was called to a parliamentary enquiry to defend the essay which got him sacked last month.

The essay argued that many Asian countries "take a positive view" of Japan's past militarism, seeing it as a bulwark against Western imperialism.

He had written: "It is certainly a false accusation to say that our country was an aggressor nation."

His views were immediately repudiated by China, and by the Japanese government.";

Full story:

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Japan's pacifism 'needs revision'

news.bbc.co.uk

"He had written: "It is certainly a false accusation to say that our country was an aggressor nation.""

It's stuff like this that always has an unproductive effect on Japan's relations with other Asian countries, and for a good reason.

Many people have the impression of Japan that when it comes to writing its modern history (particularly concerning its involvement in wars and its attitude in the past towards other Asian and western countries) correctly and truthfully, it always tries to whitewash its more brutal past.

And I have no idea how Gen Tamogami could come to this conclusion in particular based on the reality of real relations and attitudes between Japan and other Asian countries;

"The essay argued that many Asian countries "take a positive view" of Japan's past militarism, seeing it as a bulwark against Western imperialism."

Where on earth has he based this opinion on? It's ridiculous and offensive.
Attitudes like this from those Japanese who hold positions of respect and power in Japanese society only further create the impression that the Japanese like to create their idea of relations with other Asian countries in the past when the reality was very different to their modern notions. What about the Nanjing Massacre- i suppose Gen Tamogami has an opinion on how that was a "bulwark against Western imperialism", too?

A bulwark is a defensive structure. By saying Japan's past militarism was a "bulwark against Western imperialism", is he suggesting that Japan at the turn of the 20th century saw the west as a threat to Japan's stability and so Japan went to war with its Asian neighbors (with the intention to invade them) so it could take control of them and use them as a barrier against this perceived western threat?

Also, Gen Tamogami contradicts his pacifist victim Japan argument when he mentions Japan's past "Militarism". These are some of the definitions of militarism on the web;

"glorification of or reliance on military forces and prepared for war"
"The policy of building up armed forces in aggressive preparedness for war and their use as a tool of diplomacy."

These definitions paint a picture of militarism Japan being one who was gearing up for war, glorifying its military and military life, and being ready to go on the offence.
The fact that it was already going to wars with other countries in the Meiji period and later times before it even got involved in world war 2 makes me doubt that it was merely a victim in all of this.

The second main definition of militarism paints a picture of a country that is diplomatic and merely trying to build up its security for sincere reasons;

"The policy of building armed forces in aggressive preparedness for war and their use as a tool of diplomacy."
"an ideology which claims that the military is the foundation of a society's security, and thereby claims to be its most important aspect"

(definitions obtained at define:Militarism - Google Search )

These definitions would paint a picture of a more pacifist Japan, one merely increasing the power of its military to make the country safer (and not to invade other countries). These definitions paint a picture of Japan being a diplomatic and reasonable country and not an aggressive invasive nation which believes itself to be supreme/superior; it was just a country trying to defend itself etc.

I expect these above two definitions of militarism are the ones that Gen Tamogami would use as they are more in accordance with his victim Japan's beliefs. But all this says is that Gen Tamogami believes that these "many" Asian countries take a "positive view" to the idea that Japan was just a nation that was diplomatic and tried to avoid war but was "ensnared" into it by Western nations. The only reason why Japan may or may not have harmed other Asian countries back then was because it was trying to defend itself against "western imperialism". YEAH RIGHT.


People like Gen Tamogami really p*ss me off because all they do is contradict other Japanese people's arguments and actions that Japan is a country that has accepted its darker modern history and accepts its negative role in various wars, and has sincerely apologized for its bad actions in those times etc.

And it wouldn't be so bad if people like Gen Tamogami were a rarity in Japanese politics, but this isn't the first time that this sort of thing has happened in recent times.
The new Prime Minister, Taro Aso, is himself a conservative nationalist- he has praised Japan in the past as a unique example of a nation with one culture, one language, and one ethnic group (what!!??). On 2 March 2007, the issue of war crimes raised again by Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, in which he denied that the military had forced women into sexual slavery during World War II. He stated, "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion." Before he spoke, a group of Liberal Democratic Party lawmakers also sought to revise Yohei Kono's 1993 apology to former comfort women.
And i don't think i need to mention in-depth Japanese controversy surrounding the Nanjing Massacre or Japan's war dead shrines etc.

What do you think?
Do you believe Japan has really come to terms with its imperialist militarism and aggressive past and that no attention should be payed to people like Gen Tamogami?
Or do you think Japan hasn't accepted the true reality of its past, or even apologized enough for its past deeds, and is still in too much denial over its past actions?
Or do you even agree with Gen Tamogami and believe that Japan's past aggression, roles in wars and even motives in its past militarism have been exaggerated and distorted and that too many bad unreasonable accusations have been made towards it, and that Japan is a misunderstood country etc?

 

[caster51]

Do you believe Japan has really come to terms with its imperialist militarism and aggressive past and that no attention should be payed to people like Gen Tamogami?
Or do you think Japan hasn't accepted the true reality of its past, or even apologized enough for its past deeds, and is still in too much denial over its past actions?
Or do you even agree with Gen Tamogami and believe that Japan's past aggression, roles in wars and even motives in its past militarism have been exaggerated and distorted and that too many bad unreasonable accusations have been made towards it, and that Japan is a misunderstood country etc?

many general Japanese have an opinion as same as his honne.
However, media and some opposite want to bash him.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

many general Japanese have an opinion as same as his honne.
However, media and some opposite want to bash him.

Can you name any of these other generals? There's a good reason why so many people want to bash him- people like him are not good for the peace and stability of Japan as a nation.

 

[grapefruit]

Japan's constitution was written after the country's defeat in 1945 and promises the country's will never again engage in a war.

Some Japanese nationalists believe this compromises the country's status.

It is true that Japan's action in the 30s and 40s should be considered as aggression, but the peace constitution indeed puts the nation at security risk, and trying to change it has nothing to do with denying the Japan's past. I believe many people support the idea of changing the constitution to ensure the peace. It is not because they want to improve the country's status.

Many people have the impression of Japan that when it comes to writing its modern history (particularly concerning its involvement in wars and its attitude in the past towards other Asian and western countries) correctly and truthfully, it always tries to whitewash its more brutal past.

I agree with the impression that people have toward Japan. But, the fact is that Japan is not trying to whitewash its more brutal past. It is just the countries which won WWII do not want to admit their part of aggression prior to the end of WWII. So, naturally, Japan's aggression stands out.

By saying Japan's past militarism was a "bulwark against Western imperialism" is he suggesting that Japan at the turn of the 20th century saw the west as a threat to Japan's stability and so Japan went to war with its Asian neighbors (with intention to invade them) so it could take control of them and use them as a barrier against this perceived western threat?

The US, Europe, and Japan all tried to survive the era by creating their own economic spheres. When the US denied Japan's entering to the US economic sphere, Japan decided to make its own. So, Japan invaded the countries in Asia.

People like Gen Tamogami really p*ss me off because all they do is contradict other Japanese people's arguments and actions that Japan is a country who has accepted its darker modern history and accepts its negative role in various wars and has sincerely apologized for its bad actions in those times etc.

Your view sounds like ordinary Japanese people are 100 % against Gen Tamogami. But, I believe at the emotional level, many Japanese agree with what he says.

On 2 March 2007, the issue of war crimes raised again by Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, in which he denied that the military had forced women into sexual slavery during World War II. He stated, "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion." Before he spoke, a group of Liberal Democratic Party lawmakers also sought to revise Yohei Kono's 1993 apology to former comfort women.
And i don't think i need to mention in-depth Japanese controversy surrounding the Nanjing Massacre or Japan's war dead shrines etc.

I think your view is too simple. The controversy is more complex than what you say.

For example, "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion" meant a more technical condition. I don't think he denied the existence of comfort women. It is the matter of how these women got their jobs.

"Japan's war dead shrines" is the same too. It has many layers of issues involved. Saying "it is wrong to go to Yasukuni for worshiping the war dead" is too simple.

What do you think?
Do you believe Japan has really come to terms with its imperialist militarism and aggressive past and that no attention should be payed to people like Gen Tamogami?
Or do you think Japan hasn't accepted the true reality of its past, or even apologized enough for its past deeds, and is still in too much denial over its past actions?
Or do you even agree with Gen Tamogami and believe that Japan's past aggression, roles in wars and even motives in its past militarism have been exaggerated and distorted and that too many bad unreasonable accusations have been made towards it, and that Japan is a misunderstood country etc?

Any country has trouble accepting the past wrong doings. it is obvious if you view how the US defends its past wrong doings. The UK has made mistakes in the past as well (e.g. the Palestine issue).

I think the more important thing is what the country has been doing in the past 60 years after the war. The deed is more important than the words.

 

[Chidoriashi]

It is true that Japan's action in the 30s and 40s should be considered as aggression, but the peace constitution indeed puts the nation at security risk, and trying to change it has nothing to do with denying the Japan's past. I believe many people support the idea of changing the constitution to ensure the peace. It is not because they want to improve the country's status.

Hmm, I agree. Despite there being many conservative nationalists in the Japanese government, I think Japan is a different nation than it was back in the early 20th century. I think their commitment to peace is genuine.

I agree with the impression that people have toward Japan. But, the fact is that Japan is not trying to whitewash its more brutal past. It is just the countries which won WWII do not want to admit their part of aggression prior to the end of WWII. So, naturally, Japan's aggression stands out.

But to continue my point, I think that Japan does downplay its aggressiveness and action in Asia in WW2, and with Japans youth not really understanding it's militaristic past, how long a strong and genuine attitude towards peace will last cannot be known.
Anyhow compare Japan and Germany, i believe both countries were similarly brutal, however, Germany has gone to great lengths to make amends, where as Japan on some levels, seems to being doing exactly what Gen Tamogami has done and has adopted a victim attitude, i believe mostly to save face.

Anyhow, I never learned anything of how brutal the IJA was until I went to college (I am from the US). I know eduction is different in each state, but we really only focused upon Germany, and all I remember learning about Japan was the things America was involved with like pearl harbor, and the atom bombs. And I think I just summed up most americans knowledge about Japan and WW2 (Pearl Harbor and the atom bombs). So I am not really sure that some people trying point out Japan's brutality, is really an attempt just to shift responsibility away from the allies.

The US, Europe, and Japan all tried to survive the era by creating their own economic spheres. When the US denied Japan's entering to the US economic sphere, Japan decided to make its own. So, Japan invaded the countries in Asia.

I don't think "survive the era" is the right phrase here. I would say it was more like "race for power"

 

[grapefruit]

But to continue my point, I think that Japan does downplay its aggressiveness and action in Asia in WW2, and with Japans youth not really understanding it's militaristic past, how long a strong and genuine attitude towards peace will last cannot be known.

I think Japanese youth understand Japan's militaristic past. All the textbooks in Japan teach it well, including the controversy one. If I'm correct it is Americans who usually do not know horrible things the US did during the war, like bombings of major cities of Japan killing millions of innocent people. But, I don't think this kind of avoidance is uncommon or wrong. It is simply a reflection of love to one's own country. For instance, Chinese textbooks hide what happened in cultural revolution. They also downplay the facts that the most of recent history of China is not the history of Han but the history of foreign dynasties. US often ignores the fact the US was aggressor prior to WWII. It colonized Philippine, Hawaii, and some other areas. Indeed, it was the US which threatened Japan to open up its borders to the world. Japan was happy with itself before the US arrived. In a way, the US is responsible for Japan's becoming aggressive, because the US showed Japan how to take advantage of militarily weak countries. Also, it is often ignored that the US still occupies many foreign territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.

Anyhow compare Japan and Germany, i believe both countries were similarly brutal, however, Germany has gone to great lengths to make amends, where as Japan on some levels, seems to being doing exactly what Gen Tamogami has done and has adopted a victim attitude, i believe mostly to save face.

Why do you treat only Japan and Germany the same? In my view, Japan, Germany, Italy, the US, the UK, and France were all the same in the first half of the 20th century. These countries all sought for territories outside of their borders and threaten and colonized other weak countries. All of these countries were equally brutal. They were all "racing for power" and behaving as aggressors from the viewpoint of Asian coutnries like China, India, Korea, Philippines, Indonesians, Vietnamese and all African countries (which I cannot name). Only the difference is that Germany, Japan, and Italy lost WWII.

Anyhow, I never learned anything of how brutal the IJA was until I went to college (I am from the US). I know eduction is different in each state, but we really only focused upon Germany, and all I remember learning about Japan was the things America was involved with like pearl harbor, and the atom bombs. And I think I just summed up most americans knowledge about Japan and WW2 (Pearl Harbor and the atom bombs).

Unlike the US, all the children in Japan explicitly learn that Japan did bad things during WWII. Japanese children all go to Hiroshima and repent that it was us Japanese who caused the bomb to be dropped in Hiroshima (they still go to Hiroshima, don't they? At least, when I was a student, most of the schools in Japan visited there for "peace education".) So, in my opinion, Japanese education is not downplaying Japan's aggression during WWII.

 

[grapefruit]

I think it's better to read the original essay he wrote. News reports often twist stories to support their views. The following are the links to the essay he wrote.

The Japanese version: http://www.apa.co.jp/book_report/images/2008jyusyou_saiyuusyu.pdf

The English version (I don't know who translated the essay into English though): http://www.apa.co.jp/book_report/images/2008jyusyou_saiyuusyu_english.pdf

I agree with some of his arguments, but the latter half does not sound right.

 

[grapefruit]

The new Prime Minister, Taro Aso, is himself a conservative nationalist- he has praised Japan in the past as a unique example of a nation with one culture, one language, and one ethnic group (what!!??).

In any way, he lacks common sense and makes tons of foolish remarks (and displays low kanji reading ability) .

 

[Chidoriashi]

Grapefruit> well to be honest I have not actually read any Japanese textbooks on history, i suppose I should see for myself before I really make a judgement call (would not know how to get a hold of one though). I'm simply basing my assertions upon what I have heard about in the news etc.

Like I said before I learned almost nothing about the Pacific War in school, so neither the bad things the US did (like firebomb Tokyo) nor Japan's brutal trek across Asia were known to me until college. Would I have learned about those things, i really dont know, but to be sure, I learned plenty about the horrible things that were done to Native Americans. So whether omissions are deliberate or not it is hard to tell. I do agree that it makes sense for nations to have a tendency to white-wash the not so pretty parts of their past, but as we know Japan lost a war as an aggressor nation, thus the bad things Japan did are in the limelight, and are in a much tougher position to simply cover up.

Now whether or not the US is somewhat responsible for setting Japan on its militaristic path is an interesting idea, but it i do not think it sounds like a logical shift of responsibility. Its kind of like trying to excuse a criminals behavior cuz they had a tough childhood or something.

When I was talking about German and Japan i was simply speaking about WW2 in respect to them both being aggressors and inflicting major damage to other nations, not to say that others are not guilty of this in other conflicts, but this was a major major world war in which 60 million people lost their lives. That is why I singled them out for comparison. Now having said that, Germany has gone to great lengths it seems to make amends, (not that other nations do not need to for other conflicts), whereas Japan has really fallen short by comparison.

In any case I am glad to hear that you think Japanese youth do know of Japan's past militarism. As I said I only base what I am saying off of the news and what I hear from people. It is my hope though that Japan will be able to make amends with its Asian neighbors, and truly put all of this behind it someday. It will take effort on both sides though cuz I also get the feeling that the Chinese government (for example) tends to use Japan as scape goat to divert attention from its own misdeeds against its people. So true amends will definitely take a high level of sincerity on both sides.

 

[grapefruit]

Grapefruit> well to be honest I have not actually read any Japanese textbooks on history, i suppose I should see for myself before I really make a judgement call (would not know how to get a hold of one though). I'm simply basing my assertions upon what I have heard about in the news etc.

I think it's a great opportunity to see how history textbooks are written in Japan. Being able to read original sources is one of the best things about knowing a second language. You can skip the media and get the first-hand material and judge things on your own.

So whether omissions are deliberate or not it is hard to tell.

I don't think omissions are deliberate. It must be simply reflecting the common view when books were published. If textbooks have been censored, then it would a different thing. But, as far as I know, textbooks in the US are not censored, right? (unless there has been a conspiracy...)

I do agree that it makes sense for nations to have a tendency to white-wash the not so pretty parts of their past, but as we know Japan lost a war as an aggressor nation, thus the bad things Japan did are in the limelight, and are in a much tougher position to simply cover up.

I feel somehow uncomfortable when you say "Japan lost a war as an aggressor nation." Probably... because you are not calling the US as an aggressor nation." It would sound more objective if you could put it as "Japan lost a war, and since it lost, the label of aggressor was emphasized." Because, as far as I know, the US had (still has?) colonies, and by definition if you have a colony, the country should be labeled as an aggressor.

There might be two kinds of "aggressor". Probably the one you are referring to is the view from strong countries as in Japan attacked the US and Germany invaded Poland. The word "aggressor" I'm referring to is from the view point of weak, invaded countries as in Japan invaded Korea and China and the US invaded Hawaii and Philippians.

Now whether or not the US is somewhat responsible for setting Japan on its militaristic path is an interesting idea, but it i do not think it sounds like a logical shift of responsibility. Its kind of like trying to excuse a criminals behavior cuz they had a tough childhood or something.

Yeah, It does sound like blaming. Maybe because I'm watching Atsuhime these days (sorry, off-topic).

Anyway, I simply wanted to point out that the US was an aggressor. So were other European countries between the latter half of 19 century and the first half of the 20th century.

Now having said that, Germany has gone to great lengths it seems to make amends, (not that other nations do not need to for other conflicts), whereas Japan has really fallen short by comparison.

If you are referring to Germany having good relationships with its neighboring countries, I think you are missing many differences between Germany and Japan.

It is my hope though that Japan will be able to make amends with its Asian neighbors, and truly put all of this behind it someday. It will take effort on both sides though cuz I also get the feeling that the Chinese government (for example) tends to use Japan as scape goat to divert attention from its own misdeeds against its people. So true amends will definitely take a high level of sincerity on both sides.

That's my hope too. I don't think true amends will arrive before the Chinese communist party decides to become more democratic and the whole country becomes rich. As for Koreans, amends will probably not arrive until the north and the south get united. Above all, Chinese and Koreans need to gain confidence.

 

[Chidoriashi]

Yeah, when i said aggressor I was talking about Germany invading Poland etc.. not colonialism.

I'm curious to know what is your take on some of the differences between Germany and Japan's post war relations with neighboring countries?

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

I can't read the Japanese school Textbooks. I really hope that they are also written in English? If they are already translated then please tell me where I can order them.
I am very interested!! Thank you.

The children in the Netherlands learn extremely little abnout the Japanese occupation of the former Netherlands East Indies. The Dutch children are interested but history of that part of what once was a Dutch colony is swepted under the mat by the Ministery of Education. Too painful for the Dutch governments?

A school, just outside Jakarta, has used my website as a sort of history lesson of Indonesia during the colonial time. They could read how a ( not rich and not famous) Dutch family lived in their country during the latest colonial days. The teachers took up contact with me and the kids ( around 10 years young) asked me many questions. I still have a good contact with the school by e-mail and chats. It is like a Xmas present!

That is why I also like to read about the ( not rich and not famous) Japanese families during WWII. What did the Japanese grandfathers tell their children, their grandchildren?
Those are the real stories. But we hardly know them.

I think that all future generations should know more about the real stories from and about WWII. Not only "hero" stories and all sorts of denying and refusing the account of what really happened.
Our governments are wrong. It is time to tell the truth in our schools, it will help the children to get into a much better future with more understanding for others living also in our world.

 

[grapefruit]

I can't read the Japanese school Textbooks. I really hope that they are also written in English? If they are already translated then please tell me where I can order them.
I am very interested!! Thank you.

I found this on the web. This is the English translation of the controversial textbook.
http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf I would like to know what you guys think about it.

I think that all future generations should know more about the real stories from and about WWII. Not only "hero" stories and all sorts of denying and refusing the account of what really happened.
Our governments are wrong. It is time to tell the truth in our schools, it will help the children to get into a much better future with more understanding for others living also in our world.

I agree with the idea of hearing many personal stories. But, I also think it is equally inappropriate to only rely on personal anecdotes. Different people have different opinions on the same incident. If we hear what people think about the war in Iraq, I'm sure a wide variety of views will be presented in personal "real" stories. Some accounts of history are ostensibly wrong, but a great majority of books on history (including textbooks) are simply presenting different views. I don't call them wrong. It is probably more productive to show children how history is written and accounts of history are subjective. For instance, how dropping of the atomic bomb is differently interpreted in Japan and the US. I don't want our children to think there is only one absolute history. History is different from biblical stories.

 

[Chidoriashi]

Ok, I read a little bit of the textbook, mostly about WW2. I noticed the parts that some people are up in arms about, like the comment about Nanking being reduced to a footnote. My first thought is, i don't think that it is necessary to make it into a footnote, it is one thing to not post any numbers, but I could see why a Chinese person might be angered by something that was quite significant getting reduced to a footnote. If I were to write it from a more objective point of view, i would included it in the rest of the text and give both the low and high estimates and let the readers decide for themselves.


Overall it is not bad, it is certainly not complete (that is not to say stuff was being omitted, just there is only so much one can teach in one course).


Two things I would have to criticize though would be, for the most part the text seems to be allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions about the facts, except for the fact that it kind of denounces (concludes for the reader about) the Soviet Union and Germany's actions, whereas areas concerning Japan and China and the US are not really commented about as good or bad for the reader.


And my second criticism would be that when it talks about death tolls from the war between Japan and China it just simply says 22 million dead. It does not say on both sides, or this many Chinese or this many Japanese. So it is kind of like what does that mean? Some of the less brighter kids might conclude that means 22 million Japanese, or 22 million Chinese.
Anyhow thanks for the link. I will read more of it when I get a chance.

 

[kkkktttt]

I can't read the Japanese school Textbooks. I really hope that they are also written in English? If they are already translated then please tell me where I can order them.
I am very interested!! Thank you.

Kaleidoscope‐日本と欧米・アジア諸国との医療文化を比較

 

[caster51]

And my second criticism would be that when it talks about death tolls from the war between Japan and China it just simply says 22 million dead. It does not say on both sides, or this many Chinese or this many Japanese. So it is kind of like what does that mean? Some of the less brighter kids might conclude that means 22 million Japanese, or 22 million Chinese.

I think you should investigate the tokyo trial youself first.

 

[grapefruit]

This is a bit off-topic but I recently heard that Gen Toshio Tamogami received sixty million yen (about 600,000 USD) for retirement allowance.

 

[caster51]