Is Change Coming to the History Taught at the Yushukan Museum?
|
Bronze tori gate in the park leading to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. This bronze tori is supposed to be the largest in the world.
For those that don’t know, the Yasukuni Shrine has been a source of friction between Japan and their Asian neighbors, most notably Korea and China, in recent years. Both countries regularly condemned Japan when former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi would periodically visit the shrine because the shrine honors Japanese war dead including war criminals from World War II. Yasukuni enshrines the names of approximately 2.5 million Japanese who died during the Meiji era of Japanese history. Interestingly enough, something you won’t hear too many Koreans talk about, is that over 21,000 Koreans who fought for the Japanese Imperial military during World War II are also enshrined in Yasukuni. Think of it in the spirit of the Vietnam War Memorial, but instead of a wall a Shinto shrine is used. Korea and China believe the shrine should not include Japanese war criminals from World War II and Japan thinks otherwise.
Statue of Omura Masujiro who organized the Meiji military and promoted the modernization of the military in line with western standards. He was assassinated by discontented samurai in 1869, but his movement to modernize the military lived on.
Having been to the shrine myself, I don’t find the shrine insulting to China, Korea, or anyone else for that matter. There was no banners of General Tojo and other war criminals that the media would lead you to believe that this shrine is all about. In fact the shrine was actually pretty simplistic and underwhelming. The shrine was filled with old Japanese men, some wearing their old Imperial Japanese military hats, hanging out, bowing at the shrine, and then sitting down on the benches smoking their pipes, and maybe sharing memories of their time in the military with each other. These old guys seem hardly a threat to peace and stability in northeast Asia.
The reason the Koreans and the Chinese get so worked up by the Yasukuni issue is because politicians in each of those respective countries use the Yasukuni issue to deflect attention away from their own governmental short comings. George Will in this Washington Post article probably best explains the political dynamics behind both countries’ position on the Yasukuni issue:
Between that enshrinement and 1984, three prime ministers visited Yasukuni 20 times without eliciting protests from China. But both of Japan’s most important East Asian neighbors, China and South Korea, now have national identities partly derived from their experience as victims of Japan’s 1910-45 militarism. To a significant extent, such national identities are political choices .
Leftist ideology causes South Korea’s regime to cultivate victimhood and resentment of a Japan imagined to have expansionism in its national DNA. The choice by China’s regime is more interesting. Marxism is bankrupt and causes cognitive dissonance as China pursues economic growth by markedly un-Marxist means. So China’s regime, needing a new source of legitimacy, seeks it in memories of resistance to Japanese imperialism.
Actually, most of China’s resistance was by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces, Mao’s enemies. And Mao, to whom there is a sort of secular shrine in Beijing, killed millions more Chinese than even Japan’s brutal occupiers did.
Another bronze tori gate before passing through a large wooden gate leading to the Yasukuni Shrine.
However, something a lot of people don’t realize is that their is more to the shrine than the shrine itself. Near the shrine is the Yushukan Museum that is supposed to chronicle Japan’s long military history. After visiting the museum and interpreting the displays from the minimal English language signs, I can safely say that the museum is something that I can see people getting worked up over. The museum’s view of history is vastly different from what is accepted as agreed upon history in the west. If the history being exhibited by the museum was so slanted in English, I can only imagine how bad the display’s signs in Japanese must be.
Most of the museum chronicles the various samurai wars during Japan’s feudal times and then into the Tokugawa era. I would have liked to read what was displayed for the Hideyoshi invasions of Korea between 1592 and 1598 but there was no English language signs available at the time. Really the vast majority of the museum is quite interesting until you get into the post Meiji Restoration years. For one the exhibit for the Russo-Japanese War claimed that the Japanese Army liberated the Korean peninsula from foreign rule and were greeted by an enthusiastic Korean populace as liberators. This is true to an extent because there was many people in Korea happy to see the end of the corrupt Chosun dynasty, however the exhibit made no mention of the brutal Japanese occupation that would follow the end of the Russo-Japanese War. The exhibit also maintained that the Japanese brought much industry and modernization to the peninsula. Once again true to extent, but it makes no reference to the fact that the modernization of the peninsula was implemented in order to increase areas such as rice production in order to ship the majority of Korean grown rice to Japan.
The last bronze tori gate before entering the Yasukuni Shrine.
The World War II exhibit was also quite provocative. According to the museum, World War II is known as the Asia Co-prosperity War where the Japanese single handedly liberated one Asian country after another from foreign colonial occupation and the Asian people were all happy to be liberated. No mention of the atrocities committed by the invading Japanese troops. Additionally the museum blames the US for the attack at Pearl Harbor. Since the US implemented a trade embargo on the Japanese, the militarists felt that an attack by the Americans against Japan would only naturally come next. The museum even alleges that the United States even had a plan to attack Japan in the works and would have been executed if Japan had not pre-empted the American attack by conducting the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The American President Franklin Roosevelt was committed to an attack on Japan as a way for the US to escape the Great Depression. One theme I have picked up on at the museum is that every attack the Japanese conducted was only executed because of foreign colonizers threatening Japan and its neighbors. Japan never wanted to colonize any country, they just wanted to liberate Asians from foreigners.
An elderly couple pay their respects at the Yasukuni Shrine.
This is of course nonsense. I posted before on this, but the Japanese felt modernization of Japan and the colonization of nearby countries were the best way to expand Japanese power and to compete against western rivals. The Japanese had no altruistic reasons of freeing oppressed Asians from European colonizers; it was simply about building Japanese power and influence and the attack on Pearl Harbor was where they over reached in spreading their power and influence. The problems with the museum are to numerous to list here, but the shrine organizers now have a plan to fix it.
Statue outside the Yushukan museum honoring the kamikaze pilots of World War II.
Ampontan has a great posting on the hiring of a former Japanese diplomat, Hisahiko Okazaki, who’s job it will be to reinterpret the historical displays at the Yushukan museum. Unfortunately it appears Mr. Okazaki is just reinterpreting the history in a different way that is equally as distorted as the prior historical displays. Mr. Okazaki in his new interpretation of history has found a new way to blame the US for the Japanese involvement in World War II. Instead of President Roosevelt provoking the war in order to escape the Great Depression, there is a new boogie man, the Hull Note:
The Hull Note of 1941 was, however, meant to close negotiations, so I did not raise any objection to a new quotation from the Stimson Diary, which said that all that was left after the issuance of the note would be to wait for Japan to attack.
It is a historical fact that Roosevelt induced Japan to carry out a first strike. The indication of this fact does not cast aspersions on Yasukuni Shrine’s intellectual integrity.
In his book Diplomacy, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote, Roosevelt must have been aware that there was no possibility that Japan would accept (the Hull Note). America’s participation in the war was the great achievement made through the extraordinary efforts of a great and courageous leader.
Fortunately Ampontan shoots down this claim rather quickly:
What Okazaki fails to mention is that the Hull Note was issued on November 26, 1941, fewer than two weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese strike force had already set sail the day before (American time, but also the 26th Japanese time). They could have been recalled, but the Hull Note made it certain that they wouldn’t be.
Mr. Okazaki must have taken some notes from the anti-American Korean nationalists that use the obscure Taft-Katsura Agreement to bash the United States with. You would think a country like Japan that is so advanced in areas like democracy, human rights, technology, business, etc. would be mature enough to settle this history dispute between them, China, and Korea instead of relying on changing distorted history with revised history. Every country has history that it would rather forget about. You wouldn’t believe how many different countries I’ve been to and people have asked me if Native-Americans still live in teepees and if we have any plans of wiping the rest of them out. Or how many times self righteous foreigners preach to me about the horrors of General Custer and why the US government should condemn him as a war criminal. As annoying as these claims are, not once has someone claimed to me that the US government is trying to cover up the injustices committed against Native-Americans.
Japanese World War II Zero in the Yushukan museum.
By interpreting history the way the Yushukan museum does, it keeps alive the perception that the Imperial Japanese of World War II is still what represents Japanese policy in regards to its Asian neighbors today. This perception is what allows the political demagogues in Korea and China to use anti-Japanese sentiment to deflect attention away from their own political short comings. I just don’t see how Japan will be able to seek a position on the United Nation’s Security Council if it can’t work out an agreement to solve this distorted history issue with its neighbors. If Japan cannot work out an agreement to this issue, how will Japan ever have international creditability to deal with much larger and important issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Until these issues are solved Japan will never have the credibility and influence in the world that it’s population and economic might should render it.
A steam engine that actually operated on the infamous Thai-Burma Railway made famous by the movie, A Bridge On the River Kwai.
Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a justified defensive preemptive strike.
Americans are allowed to preemptive strike countries like Iraq, but Japan can't defend their own empire? Why the double standard? It's old news Rooselvelt wanted the US in WWII, so they goaded Japan into attacking them. It's no secret the US put crippling oil blockades on Japan. If any country today put oil embargo on the US, I would think the US would do the exact same – respond militarily. As for those American POW's who were allegedly mistreated, there is no proof that they were mistreated. The only thing Japan didn't do was give them preferential treatment. The real criminal of the war is the US and Truman, who dropped 2 atomic bombs on innocent civilians, when they didn't have to.
The US already had an oil embargo in the 70's during the energy crisis then and the US didn't attack anyone. Really your comments about US POWs really shows how ignorant you are. I have actually met Batan Death March survivors, that is all the proof I need.
As far as the atomic bombings I have already clearly debunkt your claims in a prior posting:
http://rokdrop.com/2005/08/08/remembering-hiroshi…
It's difficult to know what *Japan* should do about this museum, since it isn't a national museum in whose content or management the government has any say. One can talk about the presence of the museum itself as an offensive thing, which it indeed is, but to go on from there and demand public policy in response to it is misguided.
What would be the response of the US government to a demand that Congress do something about the stormfront.org website?
All the government has to do is say that the Prime Minister will not visit the shrine until the museum's displays are amended. This would instantly marganilize the museum as not being representive of Japanese government policy. As long as the Prime Minister visits Yasukuni he creates the perception that he agrees with what the museum preaches which only feeds the demagogues in Korea and Japan.
For a country wanting a UN Security Council seat you would think they could rise above something as petty as the Yasukuni issue.
Well, I'm of the opinion that Japan could burn Yasukuni to the ground tomorrow and China would still veto any Tokyo attempt to get a permanent UNSC seat . . . Prime ministerial visits are of course counterproductive. (Abe seems to be doing a good job of simply not going to the shrine, at least since well before he became PM last fall. It's resulted in summit meetings that hadn't happened for some time under Koizumi, and all those without an explicit pledge not to go to the shrine.)
Yes China and other nations like Russia and France would veto a UN Security Council seat for the Japanese or anyone else for that matter because it dilludes the power they weild if more countries are added.
However, by eliminating the history dispute and other issues with its neighbors this eliminates any political cover that a country like China would have when they do veto any attempt to add Japan. As it stands now China could veto Japan and make a strong case why Japan should not be included based on the Yasukuni issue and people would probably buy it.
However, if the history dispute and other issues like the stupid Dokdo issue is solved the veto appears a whole lot more hollow and done purely for political purposes.
Then Japan should start its own political offensive by backing countries like Brazil and India to join the Security Council with them and if they continue to be denied this will ultimately dillute the power of the Security Council because it will appear that the council is more concerned about keeping its own power and advancing its own interests (which it is) instead of being a body representative of the world's best interests. If Japan can't get into the Security Council which according to population, military, and economic might says it should then at the very least they should work to dillude what remaining power the council still has.
Japan has been part of something called the G4–the "group of four" nations aiming for permanent seats. These are Japan, Germany, Brazil, and India. They all entered an agreement to back each other up in their quest for more seats on the council.
They lost momentum for a few reasons: one was opposition from African nations, which were mounting their own campaign to get African representation among the permanent members, and one was strong opposition from the current permanent membership. I think that based on all of this, most people have been well aware that the UNSC is most concerned with maintaining the veto power for the big five that now have it and granting it to nobody else.
A magazine I work on put out a special issue dealing with all these issues a couple years ago: http://www.japanecho.co.jp/sum/2005/b32sp.html
Check it out if you're interested.
See you around on the interwebs. Added you to my RSS feed list!
There was a story about Koreans enshrined in Yasukuni tonight on NHK. It included a Korean, now living in Japan who is enshrined there…only problem is he is not dead yet………..
It is important to remember that Yasukuni is not owned by the Japanese government and has not been since the occupation.
Re Tom's comment. The Atomic bombs saved American lives…..and they kept the Russians out of Japan. A lot of Japanese don't realize how much Japan would have been hurt had the Soviets invaded Hokkaido and Northern Honshu…………
Yes China and other nations like Russia and France would veto a UN Security Council seat for the Japanese or anyone else for that matter because it dilludes the power they weild if more countries are added.
Both Russia and France are SUPPORTING Japan's seat in the security council.
Russia can have feel-good story for the bilateral relationship without dealing with territorial issues.
France simply want more countries in security council to conter Washington's influence.
Both want to have good relation with Germany,India and Brazil which all are taking more distance from Washington than Tokyo.
I'm not a supporter for Tokyo's bit though.
[…] I mentioned before in regards to the Yasukuni issue the historical problems with its Asian neighbors is what is preventing Japan from truly reaching […]
[…] visit to the "refined" Yushukan Museum located at Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine. I visited the Yasukuni Shrine myself a few years ago and it appears not much has changed despite the […]
[…] Having been to and knowing people in some of the countries this General mentions, particularly Indonesia and Singapore, I don’t know anyone that looks favorably upon the Imperial Japanese of World War II. Does anyone else? For visitors to Japan the best place to see the Japanese perspective on World War II is by going to the highly controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. […]
From OP:
South Korea and China are the loudest, but the Australians also raise a stink. Rather than single out those countries, one might ask why the US is so relatively silent on this. I guess Japan is lucky only a handful of Americans are aware of Yasukuni.
Not too many Koreans talk about it, perhaps, but they certainly do know about it. The Korean media has shed a lot of light in the 2000s on the involuntary enshrining of Koreans at Yasukuni. That’s certainly where I learned about it.
I think this is an oversimplification, if for no other reason than “Japan” is not a singular entity. In fact, a great many Japanese do not agree with the visits, and a lot think it was wrong to enshrine the worst class-A war criminals, the architects of the brutal war that killed millions (the so-called Yasukuni-14.
Doing so was purely a political decision — made secretly by the shrine keepers and not revealed until well after the fact — in support of Japan’s far right and in complete denial of Japan’s responsibility for the egregious brutality it inflicted on East Asians and their liberators. That it was done in the 1970s and not the 1940s is very telling in that (a) it was not necessary to do from a Shinto standpoint and (b) it was opposed by many people, including the Imperial Family who since the enshrinement have not visited the shrine.
So it’s not some innocuous place, by design, the right wing has made it a litmus test for the believers in a Japan that was right to have invaded and brutally occupied its neighbors and should rise again. I wrote about this a few years ago:
More from OP:
I don’t think it’s fair to bash Korea or even China in this regard. It suggests that if they didn’t have this then they would just have something else. But we have seen, four years later with the leftist administration in power in Tokyo, that Yasukuni essentially disappears as an issue when major political figures don’t visit. In other words, it’s Japan and its leaders who are in control of these issues occurring or not.
If there are more permanent members of the UN Security Council, then complete unanimity among them should no longer be required. The condition for approval of a resolution could be something like a majority of all voting members, and not more than two permanent members dissenting.
Few Americans are angry at Japan. Among other considerations: we were adequately avenged.
I bet the people in this shrine?
http://www.yonip.com/archives/history/history-000059.html
Battle of Manila (1945)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manila_%281945%29
“The fighting for Intramuros, where Iwabuchi held around 4,000 civilian hostages, continued from 23 February to 28 February. Already having decimated the Japanese forces by bombing, American forces used artillery to try to root out the Japanese defenders. However, the centuries-old stone ramparts, underground edifices, the Sta. Lucia Barracks, Fort Santiago, and villages within the city walls all provided excellent cover. Less than 3,000 civilians escaped the assault, mostly women and children who were released on 23 February afternoon.[6] Colonel Noguchi’s soldiers and sailors killed 1,000 men and women, while the other hostages died during the American shelling.[7]”
“For the rest of the month the Americans and Filipino guerrillas mopped up resistance throughout the city. With Intramuros secured on 4 March, Manila was officially liberated, but large areas of the city had been leveled. The battle left 1,010 U.S. soldiers dead and 5,565 wounded. An estimated 100,000 Filipinos civilians were killed, both deliberately by the Japanese and from artillery and aerial bombardment by the U.S. military force. 16,665 Japanese dead were counted within Intramuros alone.[11]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Massacre
There is this book that might be of interest which was published in Spain in 1947. It’s called “El Terror Amarillo de Filipinas”. It’s in Amazon but pricey.