Tennichi Takahiko on the Yomiuri War Responsibility Project
A Paper Prepared for the Workshop “Reconciliation between China and Japan: A Search for Solutions”,Canberra,August 16-19,2006.:Do not cite
Reconciliation between China and Japan: Yomiuri Campaign and Its Result
Takahiko TENNICHI
Editorial Writer, The Yomiuri Shimbun
Introduction
It was a great surprise for both rightists and leftists that we, the Yomiuri Shimbun, started a year-long campaign to clarify responsibility for the war from August 2005.
In Japan, there are five major papers, Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi, Nikkei and Sankei. In terms of historical issue, it was said that Asahi, Mainichi and Nikkei stood for left and Yomiuri and Sankei stood for right. When we started the campaign, people thought that Yomiuri had changed its position from right to middle at least. However if you check our editorial of these ten years carefully, you will realize that our basic position has not been changed. Indeed, we have raised a lot of questions on Tokyo International Military Tribunal for the Far East, what is called Tokyo Trial. At the same time, we have consistently criticized Japanese militarism. Our editorial on April 13th in 1997 was a typical example.
Japan should calmly scrutinize the regrettable aspects of its history. Criticism of the Tokyo Tribunal should not lead to a theory that accepts Japan's wartime aggression in East Asia or to the revival of the historical view that the Emperor is a living god who should rule the nation based on Shintoism.
For example, the decision to annex Korea was legal from Japan's standpoint based on the international situation at that time, the region's historical background and the approval granted by other major powers.
But it is also a fact that for the Korean people, the annexation was forced upon them under the threat of Japanese military power.
As for China, Japan must accept the fact that its actions there, on the whole, constituted an act of aggression, although this could certainly be debated in a number of specific cases.
The war Japan waged against the United States, Britain and the Netherlands in Asia eventually resulted in independence for the Asian nations, although Japan did not start the war solely to gain their independence.
Despite these facts, looking at Japan as the sole villain is too biased a viewpoint from which to judge Japan's history.
Five Questions
Nevertheless, we are now more enthusiastic to criticize Japanese leaders who caused the war. We started our campaign by our editor’s initiative. The editor, Tsuneo Watanabe, who experienced the Second World War as a soldier, has a serious concern about young generation’s insensibility towards the war. He is a realist. From his point of view, Japan’s foreign policy led by Prime Minister Koizumi is hazardous. Former Prime Minister Nakasone’s view to Koizumi is almost the same. In order to set up Japan as a trustworthy power in East Asia, Watanabe advocated that we must clarify Japanese leader’s responsibility of the war.
He raised 5 questions.
1, -- Why did Japan extend the lines of battle following the 1931 Manchurian Incident, plunging the country into the quagmire of the Sino-Japanese War ?
2, -- Why did Japan go to war with the United States in spite of extremely slim prospects for victory?
3, -- What foolishness caused the Japanese military to employ "banzai attacks," or die-but-never-surrender action, and "kamikaze" suicide aircraft attacks, after the rapid deterioration of Japan's position shortly after victories in the initial phase of the Pacific War?
4,-- Were sufficient efforts made to bring the war to an end and was it possible to prevent the civilian devastation caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
5,- What problems were there with the Tokyo Tribunal in which Allied Forces tried Japanese political and military leaders charged with war crimes?
As for the questions from 1 to 4, you can get essence of our answer by reading our copies of August 13, 2006 and those of August 15, 2006. In addition, we will publish our report of English version in coming December. Briefly speaking, our conclusion is as follows. Some people say that the war with America was defensive war pointing out the Hull Notes that required Japan total withdrawal from China. But we did not agree with such an argument. We think that Japanese leaders’ misjudgment caused the war.
Some ambitious military leaders who did not have calculated strategy led Japan to disastrous war. Some moderate leaders who did not want the war eventually yield to those ambitious leaders. Media that advocates the war was also responsible for the war. Many class-A war criminals at the Tokyo Trial overlapped with figures judged “mainly responsible” by the committee. And some are not overlapped.
In terms of the Tokyo Trial, we still keep critical position. Our editorial on May 2, 2006 pointed out some problems of the Tokyo Trial.
Questions should also be raised about the eligibility of the nations that accused and tried the defendants. The Soviet Union, whose representatives sat on the judge's bench and at the prosecutor's table during the tribunal, had been ejected from the League of Nations as an aggressor in December 1939, three months before World War II broke out.
It should also be noted that the Soviet Union breached the Japan-Soviet Neutrality Treaty to fight with Japan toward the end of the war. The Soviets sent 600,000 Japanese soldiers and others to Siberia as prisoners of war, and tens of thousands died in forced labor camps there.
This means that the Tokyo Trial was in session while the Soviet Union was flagrantly violating international law.
British, Dutch and French troops were reinvading some Asian countries during the days of the tribunal, in which these nations were judging Japan's "acts of aggression" in invading Asian neighbors. It took the Netherlands until 1949--one year after the tribunal delivered verdicts on the accused--for the country to conclude a peace deal with Indonesia's national independence forces. For its part, France never abandoned its ambition to retake Vietnam until 1954, when it suffered a crushing military defeat.
If Tokyo Trial is considered to have had many highly questionable and unfair elements, it may be advisable for the Japanese people to reconsider who bears responsibility for the war. This is our position.
The First Challenge
Our campaign must be the first approach that comprehensively clarified the responsibility of the war by Japanese media. In fact, there were few approaches to clarify the responsibility for the war comprehensively by Japanese. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, some Japanese political leaders took it on themselves to apportion responsibility for the war. The cabinet of Prime Minister Naruhiko Higashikuni considered opening a trial on war criminals. He thought that our government, not the allies, should punish war criminals. But the allies did not agree with such an idea. His successor, Kijuro Shidehara, established a government panel charged with uncovering the truth about Japan’s entry into the war. The U.S government accepted this idea But the Soviet Union halted the activity of the panel criticizing that Japanese government was going to study the lessons of the Second World War in order to revenge the allies. In effect the panel was terminated by the allies. In 1951, Japanese Foreign Ministry made a secret report analyzing why Japanese foreign policy made serious mistakes. It’s reviewed only the responsibility of Japanese diplomacy. Japan recovered its sovereignty when the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect on 28th April in 1952. Even after that, Japanese government did not make any effort to clarify Japanese responsibility of the war. The reasons were partly because Tokyo trial had already clarified Japan’s responsibility of the war and partly because we were very busy in setting up our economy. Although almost all of the Japanese media has been very critical to leaders who initiated the war, it has not dare to make campaigns to accuse those leaders because many leaders were punished by Tokyo trial. A lot of historians have clarified Japanese responsibility for the war. However, those works have tended to focus on some specific issues, topics or events of limited years. Actually if some historians clarified Japan’s responsibility of the war comprehensively, such a study would not be so influential. In this sense, Yomiuri campaign is very unique.
The Change of Japan
Japan has changed very much throughout recent ten years. Namely Japan is now trying to change its position from handicapped state to normal state. This is a famous phrase of the constitution of Japan: We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. Of course we have U.S-Japan security treaty and Japan also has Self Defense Force. Nevertheless we tended to trust in “the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.” And we tended to think that Japan should be constrained as a handicapped power because we were afraid of a ghost of Japan’s militarism. However the situation is now rapidly changing. A momentum was September 18th in 2002 when North Korea had admitted to carrying out the abductions. In addition eight Japanese who were abducted by North Korean agents were confirmed dead. At this moment some leftists who had tried to defend North Korea’s position as our friend and had been unwilling to accept the fact lost their credit.
Ａcording to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey in April 2006, 56% of respondents said the basic law should be revised. It was 47% in 1996 and 22% in 1986.
In April 2004, three Japanese were abducted by Islam militants who argued “If Japanese Self Defense Force does not withdraw, they will be killed.” Public opinion supported Japanese government’s refusal and it also criticized three hostages saying that they entered into Iraq without much thought. It reminds me of another contrast case. In 1977 Japanese Red Army hijacked Japan Airline plane and required Japanese government to release their colleagues who had arrested by Japanese police. The Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda yielded to their requirements, saying that human life is heavier than the earth. Public opinion supported his decision. The two cases symbolically reflect change of Japan through 30 years. Now people expect strong Japan.
In this situation, Prime Minister Koizumi has visited Yasukuni shrine where 14 A-class war criminals were enshrined. His intention is simply to mourn Japanese soldiers who fought for Japan. He also said that he visited Yasukuni not for Class-A war criminals but for people who had died the war. According to a survey by Yomiuri in October 2005, 51.2% of respondents supported his visit to Ysukuni Shrine. Another survey by Yomiuri shows that 68.1%of respondents recognized the war with China as aggressive war and 10.1% of respondents did not. As for Tokyo Trial, 60.8% of respondents did not know what it was. According to Mainichi survey to Diet members, 61% of respondents answered that Tokyo Trial was unreasonable but we had no option. Anyway, majority of Japanese want “strong Japan.” In this situation, there is a possibility that Japanese people will see Tokyo Trial more critically for future. In this sense clarifying our responsibility of war by us is very crucial.
,
Debate on Our Memorial
In order to settle the Yasukuni issue, LDP leaders are now proposing some ideas. One idea is to remove the class-A war criminals from the list of the war dead honored at Yasukuni shrine. However, Yasukuni Shrine has dismissed such an arrangement “impossible”, saying doing so would go against Shinto teachings. Yasukuni Shrine was a state-run facility, but after the Second World War it was forced to be a private religious corporation by the allies. If the government pressures Yasukuni Shrine, a religious corporation, to remove the class-A war criminals from its list of the war dead, it would be against the principle of separation of religion and politics. Foreign Minister Taro Aso has proposed transforming Yasukuni Shrine into a state-run facility. But it is impossible to carry out his proposal unless Shinto shrine agrees to be given such status.
Another option is to erect a state-run memorial for the war dead. Some people who oppose this idea says that Yasukuni Shrine should be the only national memorial for Japan. However, the only national memorial should be under the control of the state. In this sense the idea of erecting a state-run memorial for the war dead is reasonable. But this is not a perfect idea. If Japanese leaders like Koizumi visits both the new memorial and Yasukuni, China will criticize Japan again.
Now Japanese leaders are discussing about our memorial. It is very important issue. However more important thing is our position towards the war.
Our identity
The historical issue between Japan and China is the issue of our national identity. I understand that China cannot easily concede Japan because it is the issue concerning their national identity. As for Japan, mourning victims of war in the war is the issue of our national identity. Tokyo Tribunal is a issue of our national identity also. However, the Second World War itself was apart from Japanese traditional way. Some leaders who led the war eventually offended Japan’s national interest. Throughout our campaign I am convinced of this idea.
It is symbolic that Emperor Showa stopped visiting Yasukuni Shrine after Class-A war criminals were enshrined. The emperor was quoted as saying in the memorandum dated April 28, 1988, "Class-A [war criminals] have been enshrined [with the war dead], even including Matsuoka and Shiratori." The emperor was likely referring to former Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka and former Ambassador to Italy Toshio Shiratori, who were among the 14 Class-A war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine. They played key roles in establishing the nation's alliance with Germany and Italy during the war, which resulted in a serious confrontation with Britain and the United States. There is some debate whether the Emperor displeased all the Class-A war criminals enshrined in Yasukuni or he displeased only some limited Class-A war criminals of those. In fact he once described Koichi Kido, a Class-A war criminal as “a person who has done distinguished service to our country, although the United States sees him as a criminal.” Quoting this phrase, some rightist argue that the emperor was not displeased with all the class-A war criminals. That could be. But this is not a point. The point is that he was very critical to the war. Clarifying responsibility for the war by ourselves is a work to clarify our identity.
Conclusion
Yomiuri campaign was the first comprehensive approach by media to clarify the responsibility of the war leaders. It may be difficult for our government to do the same approach. However, it clarified the responsibility of Japanese leaders who waged the war apart from Tokyo Trial. Our campaign shows that the war was against our national interest. Today people tend to want strong Japan and also tend to be nationalistic. In this sense I believe that our campaign was very important.
.
Reconciliation between China and Japan: Yomiuri Campaign and Its Result
Takahiko TENNICHI
Editorial Writer, The Yomiuri Shimbun
Introduction
It was a great surprise for both rightists and leftists that we, the Yomiuri Shimbun, started a year-long campaign to clarify responsibility for the war from August 2005.
In Japan, there are five major papers, Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi, Nikkei and Sankei. In terms of historical issue, it was said that Asahi, Mainichi and Nikkei stood for left and Yomiuri and Sankei stood for right. When we started the campaign, people thought that Yomiuri had changed its position from right to middle at least. However if you check our editorial of these ten years carefully, you will realize that our basic position has not been changed. Indeed, we have raised a lot of questions on Tokyo International Military Tribunal for the Far East, what is called Tokyo Trial. At the same time, we have consistently criticized Japanese militarism. Our editorial on April 13th in 1997 was a typical example.
Japan should calmly scrutinize the regrettable aspects of its history. Criticism of the Tokyo Tribunal should not lead to a theory that accepts Japan's wartime aggression in East Asia or to the revival of the historical view that the Emperor is a living god who should rule the nation based on Shintoism.
For example, the decision to annex Korea was legal from Japan's standpoint based on the international situation at that time, the region's historical background and the approval granted by other major powers.
But it is also a fact that for the Korean people, the annexation was forced upon them under the threat of Japanese military power.
As for China, Japan must accept the fact that its actions there, on the whole, constituted an act of aggression, although this could certainly be debated in a number of specific cases.
The war Japan waged against the United States, Britain and the Netherlands in Asia eventually resulted in independence for the Asian nations, although Japan did not start the war solely to gain their independence.
Despite these facts, looking at Japan as the sole villain is too biased a viewpoint from which to judge Japan's history.
Five Questions
Nevertheless, we are now more enthusiastic to criticize Japanese leaders who caused the war. We started our campaign by our editor’s initiative. The editor, Tsuneo Watanabe, who experienced the Second World War as a soldier, has a serious concern about young generation’s insensibility towards the war. He is a realist. From his point of view, Japan’s foreign policy led by Prime Minister Koizumi is hazardous. Former Prime Minister Nakasone’s view to Koizumi is almost the same. In order to set up Japan as a trustworthy power in East Asia, Watanabe advocated that we must clarify Japanese leader’s responsibility of the war.
He raised 5 questions.
1, -- Why did Japan extend the lines of battle following the 1931 Manchurian Incident, plunging the country into the quagmire of the Sino-Japanese War ?
2, -- Why did Japan go to war with the United States in spite of extremely slim prospects for victory?
3, -- What foolishness caused the Japanese military to employ "banzai attacks," or die-but-never-surrender action, and "kamikaze" suicide aircraft attacks, after the rapid deterioration of Japan's position shortly after victories in the initial phase of the Pacific War?
4,-- Were sufficient efforts made to bring the war to an end and was it possible to prevent the civilian devastation caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
5,- What problems were there with the Tokyo Tribunal in which Allied Forces tried Japanese political and military leaders charged with war crimes?
As for the questions from 1 to 4, you can get essence of our answer by reading our copies of August 13, 2006 and those of August 15, 2006. In addition, we will publish our report of English version in coming December. Briefly speaking, our conclusion is as follows. Some people say that the war with America was defensive war pointing out the Hull Notes that required Japan total withdrawal from China. But we did not agree with such an argument. We think that Japanese leaders’ misjudgment caused the war.
Some ambitious military leaders who did not have calculated strategy led Japan to disastrous war. Some moderate leaders who did not want the war eventually yield to those ambitious leaders. Media that advocates the war was also responsible for the war. Many class-A war criminals at the Tokyo Trial overlapped with figures judged “mainly responsible” by the committee. And some are not overlapped.
In terms of the Tokyo Trial, we still keep critical position. Our editorial on May 2, 2006 pointed out some problems of the Tokyo Trial.
Questions should also be raised about the eligibility of the nations that accused and tried the defendants. The Soviet Union, whose representatives sat on the judge's bench and at the prosecutor's table during the tribunal, had been ejected from the League of Nations as an aggressor in December 1939, three months before World War II broke out.
It should also be noted that the Soviet Union breached the Japan-Soviet Neutrality Treaty to fight with Japan toward the end of the war. The Soviets sent 600,000 Japanese soldiers and others to Siberia as prisoners of war, and tens of thousands died in forced labor camps there.
This means that the Tokyo Trial was in session while the Soviet Union was flagrantly violating international law.
British, Dutch and French troops were reinvading some Asian countries during the days of the tribunal, in which these nations were judging Japan's "acts of aggression" in invading Asian neighbors. It took the Netherlands until 1949--one year after the tribunal delivered verdicts on the accused--for the country to conclude a peace deal with Indonesia's national independence forces. For its part, France never abandoned its ambition to retake Vietnam until 1954, when it suffered a crushing military defeat.
If Tokyo Trial is considered to have had many highly questionable and unfair elements, it may be advisable for the Japanese people to reconsider who bears responsibility for the war. This is our position.
The First Challenge
Our campaign must be the first approach that comprehensively clarified the responsibility of the war by Japanese media. In fact, there were few approaches to clarify the responsibility for the war comprehensively by Japanese. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, some Japanese political leaders took it on themselves to apportion responsibility for the war. The cabinet of Prime Minister Naruhiko Higashikuni considered opening a trial on war criminals. He thought that our government, not the allies, should punish war criminals. But the allies did not agree with such an idea. His successor, Kijuro Shidehara, established a government panel charged with uncovering the truth about Japan’s entry into the war. The U.S government accepted this idea But the Soviet Union halted the activity of the panel criticizing that Japanese government was going to study the lessons of the Second World War in order to revenge the allies. In effect the panel was terminated by the allies. In 1951, Japanese Foreign Ministry made a secret report analyzing why Japanese foreign policy made serious mistakes. It’s reviewed only the responsibility of Japanese diplomacy. Japan recovered its sovereignty when the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect on 28th April in 1952. Even after that, Japanese government did not make any effort to clarify Japanese responsibility of the war. The reasons were partly because Tokyo trial had already clarified Japan’s responsibility of the war and partly because we were very busy in setting up our economy. Although almost all of the Japanese media has been very critical to leaders who initiated the war, it has not dare to make campaigns to accuse those leaders because many leaders were punished by Tokyo trial. A lot of historians have clarified Japanese responsibility for the war. However, those works have tended to focus on some specific issues, topics or events of limited years. Actually if some historians clarified Japan’s responsibility of the war comprehensively, such a study would not be so influential. In this sense, Yomiuri campaign is very unique.
The Change of Japan
Japan has changed very much throughout recent ten years. Namely Japan is now trying to change its position from handicapped state to normal state. This is a famous phrase of the constitution of Japan: We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. Of course we have U.S-Japan security treaty and Japan also has Self Defense Force. Nevertheless we tended to trust in “the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.” And we tended to think that Japan should be constrained as a handicapped power because we were afraid of a ghost of Japan’s militarism. However the situation is now rapidly changing. A momentum was September 18th in 2002 when North Korea had admitted to carrying out the abductions. In addition eight Japanese who were abducted by North Korean agents were confirmed dead. At this moment some leftists who had tried to defend North Korea’s position as our friend and had been unwilling to accept the fact lost their credit.
Ａcording to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey in April 2006, 56% of respondents said the basic law should be revised. It was 47% in 1996 and 22% in 1986.
In April 2004, three Japanese were abducted by Islam militants who argued “If Japanese Self Defense Force does not withdraw, they will be killed.” Public opinion supported Japanese government’s refusal and it also criticized three hostages saying that they entered into Iraq without much thought. It reminds me of another contrast case. In 1977 Japanese Red Army hijacked Japan Airline plane and required Japanese government to release their colleagues who had arrested by Japanese police. The Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda yielded to their requirements, saying that human life is heavier than the earth. Public opinion supported his decision. The two cases symbolically reflect change of Japan through 30 years. Now people expect strong Japan.
In this situation, Prime Minister Koizumi has visited Yasukuni shrine where 14 A-class war criminals were enshrined. His intention is simply to mourn Japanese soldiers who fought for Japan. He also said that he visited Yasukuni not for Class-A war criminals but for people who had died the war. According to a survey by Yomiuri in October 2005, 51.2% of respondents supported his visit to Ysukuni Shrine. Another survey by Yomiuri shows that 68.1%of respondents recognized the war with China as aggressive war and 10.1% of respondents did not. As for Tokyo Trial, 60.8% of respondents did not know what it was. According to Mainichi survey to Diet members, 61% of respondents answered that Tokyo Trial was unreasonable but we had no option. Anyway, majority of Japanese want “strong Japan.” In this situation, there is a possibility that Japanese people will see Tokyo Trial more critically for future. In this sense clarifying our responsibility of war by us is very crucial.
,
Debate on Our Memorial
In order to settle the Yasukuni issue, LDP leaders are now proposing some ideas. One idea is to remove the class-A war criminals from the list of the war dead honored at Yasukuni shrine. However, Yasukuni Shrine has dismissed such an arrangement “impossible”, saying doing so would go against Shinto teachings. Yasukuni Shrine was a state-run facility, but after the Second World War it was forced to be a private religious corporation by the allies. If the government pressures Yasukuni Shrine, a religious corporation, to remove the class-A war criminals from its list of the war dead, it would be against the principle of separation of religion and politics. Foreign Minister Taro Aso has proposed transforming Yasukuni Shrine into a state-run facility. But it is impossible to carry out his proposal unless Shinto shrine agrees to be given such status.
Another option is to erect a state-run memorial for the war dead. Some people who oppose this idea says that Yasukuni Shrine should be the only national memorial for Japan. However, the only national memorial should be under the control of the state. In this sense the idea of erecting a state-run memorial for the war dead is reasonable. But this is not a perfect idea. If Japanese leaders like Koizumi visits both the new memorial and Yasukuni, China will criticize Japan again.
Now Japanese leaders are discussing about our memorial. It is very important issue. However more important thing is our position towards the war.
Our identity
The historical issue between Japan and China is the issue of our national identity. I understand that China cannot easily concede Japan because it is the issue concerning their national identity. As for Japan, mourning victims of war in the war is the issue of our national identity. Tokyo Tribunal is a issue of our national identity also. However, the Second World War itself was apart from Japanese traditional way. Some leaders who led the war eventually offended Japan’s national interest. Throughout our campaign I am convinced of this idea.
It is symbolic that Emperor Showa stopped visiting Yasukuni Shrine after Class-A war criminals were enshrined. The emperor was quoted as saying in the memorandum dated April 28, 1988, "Class-A [war criminals] have been enshrined [with the war dead], even including Matsuoka and Shiratori." The emperor was likely referring to former Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka and former Ambassador to Italy Toshio Shiratori, who were among the 14 Class-A war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine. They played key roles in establishing the nation's alliance with Germany and Italy during the war, which resulted in a serious confrontation with Britain and the United States. There is some debate whether the Emperor displeased all the Class-A war criminals enshrined in Yasukuni or he displeased only some limited Class-A war criminals of those. In fact he once described Koichi Kido, a Class-A war criminal as “a person who has done distinguished service to our country, although the United States sees him as a criminal.” Quoting this phrase, some rightist argue that the emperor was not displeased with all the class-A war criminals. That could be. But this is not a point. The point is that he was very critical to the war. Clarifying responsibility for the war by ourselves is a work to clarify our identity.
Conclusion
Yomiuri campaign was the first comprehensive approach by media to clarify the responsibility of the war leaders. It may be difficult for our government to do the same approach. However, it clarified the responsibility of Japanese leaders who waged the war apart from Tokyo Trial. Our campaign shows that the war was against our national interest. Today people tend to want strong Japan and also tend to be nationalistic. In this sense I believe that our campaign was very important.
.
posted by Peter Van Ness at 4:25 PM
<< Home