Birthday of HM Emperor Taisho 大正天皇

On this day in 1879 His Majesty the Taisho Emperor was born:

Arguments Defending the Yasukuni Shrine

Recently, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe chose not to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, honoring war dead, on the occasion of the end of the Greater East Asian War (or World War II) when it would have been appropriate to do so. This was taken by most commentators as a gesture of goodwill on his part towards those governments, particularly mainland China and South Korea which most frequently and vociferously criticize any Japanese person of importance for visiting. It remains to be seen if this goodwill gesture will earn for Japan any goodwill in return, though, I have my doubts. I have no doubt, however, that the usual criticism regarding visits to Yasukuni Shrine are themselves an affront to the very ideals that both the Chinese and South Korean governments claim to champion. This is true because both countries claim to uphold the ideal of freedom of religion, though in regards to the current government of the People’s Republic of China, no serious person in the world would consider that claim to be genuine. Nonetheless, both protest to have respect for the freedom of religion for the peoples of their two republics and yet both grant themselves the power to dictate to the people of a foreign country where they can and cannot attend religious services. This makes such criticism the purest hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, some people in Japan, well-meaning and with the best of intentions, at times respond to this in an unproductive way. The whole controversy, of course, revolves around the fact that some of the veterans whose names are enshrined at Yasukuni were convicted of war crimes by the Allied powers following the Second World War and some well-meaning Japanese attempt to refute this by stating that the Japanese government does not recognize the verdicts convicting these men of war crimes and so, insofar as Japan is concerned, they are not war criminals in spite of the fact that Article 11 of the San Francisco peace treaty to which Japan agreed states that the verdicts were accepted. That, however, is completely immaterial and should not be used as an argument in defense of visiting the Yasukuni Shrine. No country would expect that the status of war criminals would depend on the mutual agreement of both the winning and the losing powers and likewise this only provides further encouragement to those in the Chinese and Korean republics for claiming that Japan is in denial about certain points in Japanese history. So, in effect, this is an argument that actually works against Japan and to the benefit of those endlessly trying to besmirch the reputation of Japan and to shackle it forever with the negative image of World War II.

Instead, I would focus on the issue of the religious freedom of all people to pray and worship wherever they please and on the justice of the convictions themselves. The facts of history cannot be changed and the facts are that these men were convicted of war crimes and that these men were enshrined at Yasukuni. It is a fact that Japan lost the war, the Empire of Japan was dissolved and the new State of Japan was established and which was forced to submit to the victors of the war in a number of areas. Those are all facts but what is also a fact is that certainly not all of the men convicted of war crimes were truly guilty nor was the process truly just. The facts of the individual cases is what must be used to refute the accusations at those men the Allies judged to be war criminals and often enough there are examples of legal experts from the Allied countries, as diverse as India and the United States, which denounced them at the time for being unjust. In this regard, the facts are all on the side of Japan and while it would take too long to go into detail about every individual case, the most prominent may serve as an example.

Of all those convicted for war crimes, none was so well known around the world as the former general and war-time Prime Minister Hideki Tojo. All of the crimes for which Tojo was convicted amount to “waging aggressive/unprovoked war” against the various Allied nations and to authorizing the inhumane treatment of Allied prisoners. Every one of these cases can be easily refuted by the facts. Regardless of what opinion one may have of General Hideki Tojo, the fact is that he was certainly not a war criminal by any accepted standard of justice. In the first place, none of the aggressive action undertaken by Japan against China, the United States, Great Britain or the Netherlands was “unprovoked”. It was Chinese (presumably communist) forces which provoked hostilities with Japan at the infamous Marco Polo Bridge Incident, it was the US, UK and Netherlands that placed crippling sanctions on Japan which forced either the surrender of national independence or military action on the part of Japan and in the case of France, the original occupation of parts of French Indochina was undertaken with the permission of the French government. There is also the fact, which is now available to the public, that President Roosevelt authorized the bombing of Japan several months before Pearl Harbor was attacked, which is clear evidence of an intention to wage aggressive war on Japan. This, of course, brings up the most obvious point that for justice to exist it must be equally applied and if Tojo is to be convicted of war crimes for authorizing the invasion and occupation of territories not at war with Japan, then most of the Allied leaders would also have to be held to be guilty as well. Finally, on the issue of authorizing the mistreatment of Allied prisoners, there is simply no evidence that this was the case. It is undeniable that many Allied prisoners were treated inhumanely and in more than a few cases with considerable cruelty, however, there is no evidence that this was ordered or authorized by the Prime Minister and there are also some cases of Allied prisoners being treated humanely and with compassion.

Simply put, in a great many cases, Japanese leaders were being convicted of crimes that were only declared to be crimes retroactively and for which they alone were to be held responsible for even though others, during and before the war, had carried the same or similar actions. Those are the facts and those can be used to make a strong and irrefutable defense of those attending the Yasukuni Shrine. Saying that the Japanese government passed a bill denying their guilt does not help the matter. It also does not help to try to employ the same double-standard used by the enemies of Japan. This most often occurs in regards to the United States with many claiming that the American pilots and generals who ordered and carried out the horrific bombings of Japanese cities, which killed huge numbers of civilians, as well as the atomic bombings were war criminals. This is not helpful. It is a fact that these things happened and it is a fact that these things were immensely cruel, however, it does not speak at all to the guilt or innocence of any of the Japanese who were convicted of war crimes. In all World War II, the Allies made it a point not to convict anyone of bombing civilian targets since they themselves had done the same. The Germans bombed British civilians, the British and Americans bombed German, Italian and other civilians, Americans bombed Japanese civilians and the Japanese bombed Chinese civilians. Everyone was guilty and so the matter was dropped and so it should remain. Claiming that “our” people were not war criminals but “their” people were war criminals does not win any arguments only gives the appearance of attempting to cover up guilt by deflection. What happened to all the victims of the bombings was a horror but it was never considered a war crime by anyone because to condemn one would be to condemn all.

Finally, while refuting the justice of the war crimes trials themselves and while standing up for freedom of religion, one last means of defending the Yasukuni Shrine and visits to it is to point out the injustice of claiming ‘guilt by association’. In other words, no matter what opinion one may have as to the justice or injustice of those convictions for war crimes, the inclusion of those men should not taint the memory of the multitude of people enshrined at Yasukuni. This is an argument that all people can understand and which can stand as simple common sense. Whatever was done by the 14 men convicted as Class-A war criminals, it would be an obvious injustice to dishonor the nearly two and a half million other men, women and children who are enshrined there. This must be emphasized in combination with the fact that religion is a personal thing and so to judge not only all of those enshrined but even those who visit Yasukuni Shrine because of a relative hand-full of (justly or unjustly) controversial cases would itself be an act of great unfairness and injustice. Most of all, it must be made clear that Yasukuni Shrine honors all those who have given their lives in service to His Majesty the Emperor and not, as so many in the leftist media claim, simply to honor war criminals specifically. Those I feel are the arguments that I think would work best, not those which are detrimental to the shared goal of defending the honor and integrity of the shrine and all who go there.

Japan Declares War on Germany

It was on this day in 1914 that the Empire of Japan officially declared war on the German Empire, entering the First World War and launching an air attack on the German colony in China. Here are some postcard memories of Japan from World War I:

Allied leaders: HM the Taisho Emperor, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (left), King George V of Great Britain and the President of France (bottom)

The battle of Tsingtao, China -biggest Japanese victory

HM the Taisho Emperor

HM the Taisho Emperor reviewing troops to be sent to the war

Japanese troops in the Siberian expedition at the end of the war

HM the Taisho Emperor and symbols of Japan

The Imperial Japanese Soldier: "Soldiers of Justice and Right"

Christianity in Japan

すべての人をうやまい、兄弟たちを愛し、神をおそれ、王を尊びなさい。

Their Majesties Mark the End of the War

Today marks the 69th anniversary of the end of World War II and Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress as well as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe gathered with about 6,000 people at Nippon Budokan hall in Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo to commemorate the event and to remember solemnly the approximately 3.1 million Japanese people who died in the war. His Majesty the Emperor said,

“Thinking about the many people who lost their precious lives and their bereaved family members, I once again feel deep sorrow. With the earnest hope that the tragedy of war will never be repeated, I together with people across the nation express my sincere condolences for those who laid down their lives on the battlefield, as well as others who lost their lives during the war, while praying for world peace and the further development of our nation.”

The Prime Minister spoke of the importance of remembering that the peace and prosperity Japan enjoys today is only possible because of the great sacrifices made by previous generations. It should also be pointed out that as the war becomes more distant and the living links to that era are fewer and fewer it becomes all the more important to remember those who fought with honor and dignity and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the Emperor, Japan and the Japanese people.

The Politically Incorrect Truth About the Comfort Women Issue

The Modern Day Atomic Bomb Problem

Today Japan remembers the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6. It was a tragic and horrible occasion that should not have happened. None of the justifications for it hold up to close scrutiny. First, as a way of forcing Japan to end the war, it was unnecessary. By August of 1945 there was no doubt that Japan had lost the war. Tokyo had been fire bombed into a smoking ruin, the Imperial Japanese Navy had been decimated and the Allies held total air superiority over the home islands of Japan. Already there were efforts underway to try to arrange peace. Also, a demonstration of overwhelming American power did not require the atomic bombing of a major city full of innocent civilians. The bomb could have been exploded in a remote area where its power could have been demonstrated without massive loss of life. Likewise, the most often cited justification for the bombing, that it saved the lives of all those who would have died in an American invasion of the home islands (the majority of them Japanese) would only make sense if it was necessary to invade the home islands to end the war, which it clearly was not. Again, elements within Japan were already looking for a way to end the war and with the Allies holding total air and naval superiority over Japan, an invasion was not essential to force Japan to surrender. A total blockade could have produced the same outcome without using the atomic bomb.

All of that being said, while I oppose the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in fact, I cannot do so in theory. War is inherently cruel and it can never be made totally humane. In this case, the use of atomic weapons was, in my opinion, unnecessary. However, if conditions had been otherwise, if you are in a war and have a weapon that will save the lives of your people and bring the war to a swift and successful conclusion, it seems almost inhumane not to use it under such circumstances. For example, put the shoe on the other foot; if Japan had possessed the atomic bomb and the means of delivering it to American shores, with Japanese forces under heavy attack and Japan itself being bombed and starved, would Japan have hesitated to use the atomic bomb on the United States? It would have been terribly cruel, as its use on Hiroshima was, but if Japan using atomic weapons against the Americans would have saved Japanese lives and ended the threat to the Empire of Japan, wouldn't it have been cruel to have refused to do that? As is not uncommon, such moral and ethical questions are not always 'black and white'.

This is something to consider, because the focus and reaction to the atomic bombing in Japan can have very serious consequences in the present time and going forward due to its impact on Japanese-American relations. Does Japan desire to have the United States as a friend an ally or does the American use of the atomic bomb make this impossible? Recent polls have shown that the U.S. has a more positive view of Japan than Japan does of the United States and this sort of thing does not go unnoticed in America. The American people see elements on the left in Japan condemning American foreign policy, protesting America's military presence on Okinawa and they also see elements on the right condemning American past policies, calling American military personnel war criminals mostly for the bombing campaign and the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of this, combined with general weariness and similar attitudes from other countries have caused a steady increase in support for isolation or at least non-intervention among the American public.

Undoubtedly, in the past, such an attitude would have been to the benefit of Japan, but do the Japanese people truly consider it to be beneficial today? Is the pressing of the issue of the moral guilt of the United States in 1945 more important than the military support of the United States in defending Japan today? It is a serious question that should be considered because remarks of solidarity by politicians in Washington and Tokyo are not as important as the sympathy and goodwill of the voting public. If China were, for example, to land forces on the Senkaku Islands tomorrow and Japanese Self-Defense Forces fired on them in defense of Japanese territory, what would happen if China then declared war on Japan with both sides claiming to act in self-defense? Does Japan think it could stand alone against the immense numerical superiority of the Chinese, even with the higher quality and effectiveness of Japanese forces? Who else would be able or willing to come to the aid of Japan? What would Japan say to the American people who ask why they should sacrifice anything to defend Japan from China when this would have no real impact on American security at all? I would be pleased to see the situation in which Japan would require no assistance at all, but as things stand right now, with the vast numerical superiority of China, that does not seem to currently be the case.

Everyone in Japan should also keep in mind, in addition to the political attitudes in Japan, the political attitudes in the United States. It is a matter of fact that the side which most defends the use of the atomic bomb against Japan in the United States, the side which bristles the most whenever America or America's historical legacy is criticized, is the same side which is most adamant that the U.S. should come to the aid of Japan if China ever attempts to seize the Senkaku Islands by force. And that side is currently losing support. This is a serious matter and these questions should be given serious consideration as they have a definite impact on Japanese national security. For myself, there is no doubt that Japan was forced to go to war in 1941 and that the atomic bombing in 1945 was unnecessary. The questions remains though, whether that historical argument should outweigh the current state of Japanese-American relations. Does Japan value the alliance with the United States or not? It is a simple question but one that cannot be taken lightly.

Remembering World War I 第一次世界大戦下の日本

IJN battleship "Suwo"

It was this week in 1914 that the First World War began in Europe between the Allied nations (primarily Great Britain, France, Italy and Russia) and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey). Although it is often overlooked, the Empire of Japan played a significant part in World War I and, as in so many other cases, the conflict had a profound impact on the subsequent history of Japan and how the empire interacted with the world. At the time of the conflict, the Anglo-Japanese alliance was still in place and on August 7, 1914 the British Empire officially asked for Japanese assistance in thwarting the powerful East Asia squadron of the German navy. The Japanese government sent Germany an ultimatum, which the Germans ignored, and so on August 23, 1914 the Empire of Japan declared war on the German Empire. When Austria-Hungary refused to withdraw its cruiser, SMS Empress Elizabeth, from the combat area in China at the German port of Tsingtao, Japan declared war on Austria-Hungary as well.

Japanese forces landing at Tsingtao

Imperial Japanese Naval forces quickly seized control of the German Caroline, Marshall and Mariana islands and laid siege to the German port of Tsingtao. The British also sent a token force to participate in the siege, mostly so as to give them some influence when it came time to determine how the spoils of war would be divided when the conflict was over. The Japanese also launched air attacks from the Wakamiya the first Japanese aircraft carrier (a seaplane carrier) which were the first naval aviation attacks in history. Japanese and British naval forces blockaded the port while troops cut off the port from the rest of China and moved in slowly. At one point, British troops came under fire from their Japanese allies, who had trouble telling them apart from the Germans. To prevent this from happening again, some of the British troops were given kimonos to wear over their uniforms so that the Japanese soldiers would recognize instantly that these were allies and not enemies.

Japanese troops attack Tsingtao

Japanese cavalry cut off the German rear guard and forced them to fall back, giving Japan control of all the approaches to the port. On October 17 a Japanese cruiser was sunk by a German torpedo boat but it was cut off from the port and had to be scuttled by its own crew. On October 31 the Japanese forces on land and at sea began an intense bombardment of the German defenses, recreating their successful tactics from the siege of Port Arthur. On November 6 the Japanese infantry charged the German third defensive line, overwhelming the defenders and forcing the Germans to fall back (there were also a small number of Austro-Hungarian defenders). This success convinced the Germans that their defeat was inevitable and so they asked for terms of surrender. These were decided but when the surrender ceremony was held, the Germans faced the Japanese soldiers in salute but turned their backs on the British soldiers. This outraged the British commander, but nothing could be done about it. Japan gained control of the German port but later turned it back over to China. Japan also was given a mandate over all the German islands north of the equator while Britain (or more specifically Australia) took everything to the south.

However, Japanese forces also served in other areas during the war. The future war hero General Homma, who would conquer The Philippines in World War II, served with the British Expeditionary Force on the Western Front. Imperial Japanese Naval forces escorted British troop ships from Asia to the main battlefronts in Europe, clashing with German submarines as far away as in the Mediterranean Sea. When the Sultan of Turkey declared a "jihad" against the Allies and called on all Muslims to revolt and attack the Allied powers, Japanese forces helped to suppress a mutiny by British colonial forces in Singapore. It is also noteworthy that the German troops who were captured by the Japanese all expressed how well their were treated by their captors while being held in prison camps in Japan. They thought that next time, they would want Japan to be on their side and some leaders were not prepared to wait. The infamous "Zimmermann Telegram" which brought the United States into the war spoke not only of Mexico attacking the USA in alliance with Germany but also of Mexico persuading Japan to switch sides and declare war against the Allies. This displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of the Japanese character as anyone in authority in Tokyo would have taken such a suggestion that Japan would betray her allies as a serious insult.

World War I Allied leaders

Yet, once the war was over, it was the Empire of Japan that felt very insulted by her fellow Allies. At the peace conference in Versailles, the Japanese delegation was practically ignored. Japan was accused of asking for too much even though most of what Japan had actually taken during the war, such as the vast tracts of the Russian Far East during the Siberian intervention, were all handed back to their previous owners. Japan also felt insulted by the Allied refusal to include a clause in the peace treaty affirming racial equality. The Empire of Japan was given permanent seat on the council of the League of Nations but this same body quickly displayed an anti-Japanese bias just as it was in the aftermath of the war that the British Empire broke off its alliance with Japan in favor of better relations with the United States and when Britain and America made agreements to limit naval armaments that put Japan at a distinct disadvantage compared to the other major naval powers. As with a number of other countries, the outcome of World War I helped set in motion the events that ultimately ended in the outbreak of World War II.