Two Enemies Who Saved Each Other

The picture above shows Manuel Roxas of the Philippines and Colonel Nobuhiko Jimbo of the Imperial Japanese Army who was part of the forces that occupied The Philippines during the Second World War. These two men began and ended the conflict on opposite sides and yet each man owed the other his life. Manuel Roxas was a prominent leader in The Philippines before the war, serving for twelve years as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. When the United States of America agreed to grant independence to The Philippines, Roxas served in the convention to draw up the constitution for the new country and he served as Secretary of Finance along with other positions and was a brigadier general in the Filipino army. Elected to the Senate, he was unable to take his seat because of the outbreak of war and when Japanese forces attacked the Philippines he was made liaison officer between the armies of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the United States of America. Eventually, of course, the American and Filipino forces were defeated by the Japanese troops under the noble General Masaharu Homma and finally surrendered. Roxas was among those taken prisoner.

This was a time of great pain and suffering. General Homma gave orders to treat the Filipinos as brothers and forbid any acts of cruelty, however, there were others who were hate-filled and who did horrible things, sometimes on orders they had forged in General Homma's name. Whenever the general found out about such things, he had the guilty officers reprimanded. A few weeks after the surrender, General Manuel Roxas was taken prisoner and the local Japanese commander, General Torao Ikuta, received an order to execute him. General Ikuta was also an honorable man and was greatly distressed at being given such an order. He sent the order on to a subordinate officer, Colonel Nobuhiko Jimbo. As it happened, Colonel Jimbo was another example of an upright officer. He was also a Catholic, the same as Roxas, and was disgusted by the very idea of murdering him, regardless of military orders which seemed to be genuine. He struggled with his conscience as he was transporting the prisoners.

Roxas and a local governor were both taken by Colonel Jimbo to be executed but the governor pleaded for his life and Colonel Jimbo bravely determined that he could not and would not execute the two men. He went personally to General Ikuta to urge him to spare the two men, regardless of what orders had been issued. It would be barbaric and such orders, he reasoned, had to be some sort of mistake. General Ikuta quickly agreed and had the prisoners hidden away. However, an officer soon arrived from Manila demanding that the executions be carried out and that Colonel Jimbo be court-martialed for his efforts to save their lives. Again, showing great courage and character, Colonel Jimbo was still not prepared to give up and traveled to Manila himself to confront General Homma directly. General Homma was not in his office when Jimbo arrived but he spoke to Homma’s chief of staff who could not believe that the general would give such an order. Jimbo handed him the document which the Chief of Staff suspended and immediately and then confronted the junior general he suspected of being responsible for the false order.

When General Homma returned to his headquarters and learned of the whole situation, he immediately countermanded the execution of Roxas and personally thanked Colonel Jimbo for his brave stand in the cause of justice and humanity. He told the colonel that he would be sure to mention his actions when he returned home and gave his report to the Emperor. Roxas would go on to be the first President of The Philippines after the war. General Homma, however, was not allowed to make his report to the Emperor as his enemies within the army succeeded in having him relieved of command and sent home. Not being allowed to report to the Emperor, as was customary, was done as a sign of his semi-disgrace. He was an unjust action for a general so talented, dedicated and honorable as General Homma. Worse was to come, however, as after the war, General Homma was returned to The Philippines where he was convicted and executed as a war criminal; a case so blatantly unjust that even a number of very prominent Americans spoke out against it and harshly condemned their own countrymen for participating in such a disgraceful act.

The upright Colonel Nobuhiko Jimbo almost suffered a similar fate. He had been transferred to China and was himself arrested at the end of the conflict as a potential "war criminal". In 1946, Filipino President Roxas, however, learned that Colonel Jimbo was being held in prison in northern China awaiting trial and he acted to return the favor the colonel had done in saving his life. Roxas wrote personally to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, explaining the situation and asking that Colonel Jimbo be given amnesty. The Chinese leader agreed and the following year Colonel Jimbo was released and returned to Japan. He had survived but only because of the timely intervention of the man whose life he had saved. If Roxas had not found out about Jimbo in time, he mostly likely would have been executed in the wave of anti-Japanese hysteria in China in the aftermath of the war. These two men, one Filipino, one Japanese, had started and ended the war on opposite sides and yet each had saved the life of the other. While many seem to enjoy remembering only the cruel and sad events of the war, more emphasis should be given to remembering those like Colonel Jimbo Nobuhiko who risked everything to save the life of one man.

皇太子ご夫妻と愛子さま、戦後70年の特別展をご訪問(15/07/27)

General Kuribayashi Tadamichi 栗林忠道

The man who led one of the most iconic and fierce struggles in the latter days of the Empire of Japan was General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, an accomplished soldier, writer and diplomat who had a level of understanding of the enemy Japan faced that most of his fellow officers did not. He was born on July 7, 1891 in Hanishina District, Nagano Prefecture to an old samurai family. Given his family background, a military career was only natural for Kuribayashi, though in his early days at school he was most known for literary talents as a writer of speeches, poetry and inspirational works. He was also known for being somewhat rebellious and was almost expelled from school for organizing a students strike. In fact, he had initially planned on becoming a journalist but was finally persuaded by his instructors to attend the Imperial Japanese Army Academy after graduating from Nagano High School in 1911. He graduated in 1914 as a cavalry officer and went on to the Army Cavalry School in 1918 to further perfect his skills. He showed such promise that he went on to the Army War College and had an outstanding record, graduating in 1923 with high praise and receiving the coveted military saber from His Majesty the Taisho Emperor of Japan.

In 1928 Kuribayashi was sent as a deputy military attaché to the United States in Washington DC and during his two year stay in America he studied at Harvard University. He gained a valuable perspective there and was most impressed by the massive economic and industrial strength of the United States. He later said that, in his travels around the country, “…I knew the close connections between the military and industry. I saw the plant area of Detroit, too. By one button push, all the industries will be mobilized for military business.” Later he held a similar post in Canada but it was his time in the United States that gave him a first-hand understanding of the enemy Japan would ultimately face in World War II. He was one of the few Japanese military figures who understood just how massively outmatched Japan would be in any war with the United States and hoped that such a thing could be avoided. After returning from Canada, he served on the General Staff in Tokyo, continued to do some writing and by 1940 had been promoted to major general. When war broke out in December of 1941 he was serving as chief of staff of the 23rd Army tasked with the conquest of Hong Kong.

When the war came, Kuribayashi was one of the few men in the Japanese military who understood what the consequences would be. On numerous occasions he had said to his family that, “America is the last country in the world Japan should fight”. This, combined with his occasional remarks supportive of a negotiated peace, led some of the more radical militarists to accuse him of being a defeatist and lacking in support for the Japanese war effort. However, Kuribayashi was as loyal and committed a soldier as Japan ever had and his views were based on his understanding of American military might. He knew that it was a war that would be virtually impossible for Japan to win given the overwhelming American superiority in resources, manpower, economic and industrial output compared to Japan. Others had the bare facts but Kuribayashi had actually seen it for himself and fully grasped just how massive the imbalance was between Japan and America and he did not want to see the Empire of Japan wiped out in a war in which there was practically no chance of success. Nonetheless, once that decision was made, he was absolutely committed to doing his duty and would fight the Americans with the utmost of his abilities.

During the war, General Kuribayashi gained the reputation of being a ‘soldier’s general’. He visited his wounded men in the hospital, something which was rare at the time, showed great concern for keeping his troops properly supplied and was determined not to waste their lives needlessly. In 1943 he was promoted to lieutenant general and given command of a training division with the Imperial Guard and the following year was given the field command of the 109th Division. A few days later he was informed that he would be tasked with the defense of the island of Iwo Jima and was even granted an imperial audience before being flown to the island to assume command. When Kuribayashi arrived on Iwo Jima he already had a plan in mind for how to inflict a costly defeat on the Americans. However, he had been kept in the dark about the overall strategic situation for Japan and did not know, at the time, that he was essentially being sent to certain death with the assignment. The plan Kuribayashi had was of a type that would have been familiar to someone like American General George Patton. His idea was to set up a defense in-depth in the interior of Iwo Jima to lure in as many Americans as possible and pin them down with withering fire at which time the Imperial Japanese Navy Combined Fleet would swing in from the sea and Kuribayashi and the navy would crush the Americans between them.

After arriving, Kuribayashi told Major Yoshitaka Horie, “When the enemy comes here, we can contain him, and then our Combined Fleet will come to slap his face. That is to say, our role here is a massive containing action.” However, Horie then informed him of recent events that Kuribayashi did not know about. The Combined Fleet had been practically annihilated at the Battle of the Philippine Sea only ten days before and the Imperial Japanese Navy would never launch a major offensive operation again. Additionally, Japanese naval air power had been wiped out as well with over 5-600 aircraft destroyed. Kuribayashi had been unaware of any of this and only upon learning of it did he realize that there was practically no hope for a Japanese victory on Iwo Jima. Still, it was his duty to try and that is what he would do. He inspected the defenses of the island himself, laid out new defensive positions and determined to fight on Iwo Jima regardless of the odds against him and to kill as many Americans as possible. His only hope was that if he could inflict horrendous losses on the American forces, the public in the United States might lose morale and be more agreeable to abandoning the war and making peace with Japan.

This was the only option Kuribayashi had and his reasoning was sound. However, the nature of World War II in the Pacific for the United States meant that it would not work. This, after all, is something that would happen to American overseas conflicts yet to come and which most people today are familiar with. However, this is partly exactly why President Roosevelt was adamant that Japan strike the first blow in bringing the United States into the war. That event galvanized the public and ensured that the mentality of the American people would be different than it would be in later conflicts such as the war in Vietnam for example. In a war that America chose to fight, even for laudable reasons, extreme loss of life could be enough to cause public support for the war to drop and force the government to pull out and end hostilities. However, in this case, because Japan had attacked American territory, regardless of the reasons, that was not going to happen in World War II. Losses in the Pacific islands campaign would be extreme for the United States but support for the war would never drop but a greater ferocity encouraged. That is not to say though that General Kuribayashi was wrong in his decision. Under the circumstances there was no other decision he could make other than to surrender without fighting at all.

Any Japanese strategy in the island campaigns were crippled from the outset by American naval superiority. Even if Japan had inflicted devastating losses on American forces, even to the extent of forcing the enemy off of an island like Iwo Jima, would have been only temporary setbacks for the United States which could have simply bypassed such islands, keeping them from being re-supplied until the Japanese garrison was forced to surrender or die of starvation. This was similar to the strategy used by General Douglas MacArthur of bypassing strong points and attacking weak points, leaving heavily fortified areas to wither in isolation. Unlike warfare on land, when it came to the Pacific islands, everything depended on maintaining naval superiority which, in turn, also guaranteed air superiority so that there was no way an island garrison could fight a war of attrition against an enemy that controlled the seas and skies around the combat area. Kuribayashi surely understood this but he was determined to do the best he could in an extremely difficult situation. As long as the Americans were intent on taking Iwo Jima he could at least delay the American offensive and buy time for the major, most heavily populated Japanese home islands. Every day he held out was one more day before American forces could invade Honshu or increase the bombing of the Japanese heartland.

General Kuribayashi made the best of a bad situation and learned from previous Japanese defeats to mount a more successful defense. Accepted thinking, in resisting an amphibious assault, was to put your strength up front and try to stop the enemy on the beaches when they were the least organized and the most vulnerable. However, General Kuribayashi decided against this. On Saipan, Guam and Tinian he had seen this tactic fail because of American naval superiority. Anything he placed on the beaches would be pulverized by the American battleships offshore so, instead, he placed his men farther inland in an intricate network of underground fortifications. Taking those fortifications would be a long, bloody and frustrating affair for the attacking Americans. Kuribayashi also knew that he could expect no help from Japan and he had to use his men and supplies conservatively. Lack of food, water and the prevalence of sickness because of a lack of proper supplies was a major problem for the Japanese from the outset. On February 19, 1945 the first elements of the U.S. Marines began landing on Iwo Jima. Because of the great care and preparations taken by General Kuribayashi, it would be a grueling affair for the American forces, lasting five weeks and ultimately costing the American forces over 6,000 killed and over 19,000 wounded. The Japanese garrison of just over 22,000 men generally fought to the death with only 216 being captured.

General Kuribayashi ordered his men not to fire on the Americans as they came ashore but to draw them in close and then fight fiercely to the last man and urged his troops to set as their goal to kill at least 10 Americans before giving up their life. Given the popular perception of the war in the Pacific, it is important to note that General Kuribayashi did not favor what Americans called the “banzai charge”. The aggressive temperament of Japanese warriors repeatedly led them, in other battles, to launch suicidal charges when the situation became desperate. However, this meant that they would be out in the open and thus easily wiped out by superior American firepower. What Kuribayashi did was far more effective, urging his men to stay in their defensive positions and force the Americans to expose themselves to danger in trying to pry them out of their holes and earthworks one by one. Marine General Holland Smith noticed this and paid his enemy a typically Marine style of compliment saying of General Kuribayashi, “I don’t know who he is, but the Japanese General running this show is one smart bastard.” The Japanese resisted fiercely and took a heavy toll on the attacking Marines as the fight for Iwo Jima dragged on for days and weeks. General Kuribayashi was among the last still holding out.
Knowing that the end was near, he wrote,

“The battle is entering its final chapter. Since the enemy's landing, the gallant fighting of the men under my command has been such that even the gods would weep. In particular, I humbly rejoice in the fact that they have continued to fight bravely though utterly empty-handed and ill-equipped against a land, sea, and air attack of a material superiority such as surpasses the imagination. One after another they are falling in the ceaseless and ferocious attacks of the enemy. For this reason, the situation has arisen whereby I must disappoint your expectations and yield this important place to the hands of the enemy. With humility and sincerity, I offer my repeated apologies. Our ammunition is gone and our water dried up. Now is the time for us to make the final counterattack and fight gallantly, conscious of the Emperor's favor, not begrudging our efforts though they turn our bones to powder and pulverize our bodies. I believe that until the island is recaptured, the Emperor's domain will be eternally insecure. I therefore swear that even when I have become a ghost I shall look forward to turning the defeat of the Imperial Army to victory. I stand now at the beginning of the end. At the same time as revealing my inmost feelings, I pray earnestly for the unfailing victory and security of the Empire. Farewell for all eternity.”

General Tadamichi Kuribayashi died on or around March 26, 1945. As there were virtually no survivors, the exact nature of his death has been subject to some speculation. Some accounts say he was killed in action during an attack on an enemy camp, others say he committed seppuku near his headquarters after facing north and bowing three times toward the Imperial Palace after which his assistants shot themselves after burying him. Whatever the exact circumstances were, General Kuribayashi had died like a hero and more than fulfilled his duty to resist and defend Iwo Jima to the very end. He had taken a heavy toll on the U.S. Marines and Iwo Jima was the only battle in which total American casualties were greater than total Japanese casualties. He had also earned the respect of his enemies, Marine General Holland Smith wanted to give Kuribayashi a proper burial with military honors but his body could not be found. In his memoirs, General Holland wrote, “Of all our adversaries in the Pacific, Kuribayashi was the most redoubtable.” And, while public support for the war certainly did not fall off because of the battle, the staunch resistance of Kuribayashi did have an impact as many in the United States later questioned suffering such heavy losses to capture an island that was not very strategically significant. General Kuribayashi had been tasked with fighting a hopeless battle but he fought that battle with the greatest skill and heroism possible, accomplishing as much as could have been accomplished in such a situation. He stands as a figure worthy of the utmost respect and admiration.

Captain Fuchida Mitsuo 淵田 美津雄

Captain Fuchida Mitsuo will forever be remembered for the leading part he played in a pivotal moment of world history. It was he who led the first wave of planes into the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941. He was instrumental in one of the greatest victories in the military history of Japan. Additionally, after the war, he would win another type of victory, a moral victory, in setting an example that helped many Americans see Japan in a new way and to realize that the Japanese were not enemies but valued friends. He was born on December 3, 1902 in Nara Prefecture and from early in life was filled with the zeal of a patriot who wanted to serve his country and the Emperor. In 1921 he enrolled at the naval academy in Etajima, Hiroshima and was passed as a midshipman in 1924. While there he befriended a brilliant fellow classmate, Genda Minoru, who would be the one to plan the intricate attack on Pearl Harbor two decades later.

Ensign Fuchida chose to specialize in naval aviation and as he worked his way up the chain of command, becoming a lieutenant by 1930, he was especially expert at horizontal bombing. His skill was so great that he was chosen to be an instructor in this field later in 1936. In the meantime, however, he gained his first combat experience during the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1929, serving on the aircraft carrier Kaga and leading bombing missions in the Hankow region while stationed at Nanking. Further promotions and different assignments followed and he was also accepted into the Naval Staff College. In 1939, by then Lieutenant Commander Fuchida was transferred to the aircraft carrier Akagi, a ship that would always be special to him. In October of 1941 he was promoted to full Commander in charge of the Akagi's air group. When it became known that he would lead the attack on Pearl Harbor if a peaceful settlement with the United States could not be reached, he was honored. He knew the United States had Japan outmatched in military terms but was confident that Germany would win the war in Europe and that would enable Japan to win in Asia.

He trained his pilots diligently for the operation and on the morning of December 7 led them into the home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Everything went exceedingly well. The American forces were taken by complete surprise and the U.S. fleet in Pearl Harbor was decimated. Commander Fuchida returned to the Akagi to wild cheers for the part he had played in the victory. Privately, however, he was disappointed that Admiral Nagumo decided to withdraw rather than sending in a third attack wave to destroy the naval infrastructure facilities. The problem was that no American carriers were found at Pearl and Admiral Nagumo was concerned that if they should appear while his planes were attacking Hawaii, the Japanese fleet could be wiped out. In any event, the victory had been great enough on its own and Commander Fuchida was a genuine war hero. Upon his return to Japan he was summoned to the Imperial Palace for an audience with the Emperor. Later, Commander Fuchida recalled how interested His Majesty was in the details of his report and that he was very concerned about any American civilian casualties. Fuchida assured His Majesty that no civilian areas were hit during the attack.

With the Greater East Asian War underway, Commander Fuchida participated in the bombing attacks on Darwin, Australia. Later he served with great success in the air attacks on British naval bases at Ceylon. He was wounded at the pivotal Battle of Midway, preventing him from flying afterwards and when the Akagi sank he broke both his ankles in an explosion. Afterwards, he served for the remainder of the war as a staff officer and in 1944 was promoted to captain. He was in Hiroshima the day before the atomic bomb was dropped for a naval conference but was called back to Tokyo on the day of the attack. The day after Hiroshima was destroyed, he was sent to the city to report on the damage. Everyone else in his party would eventually die of radiation poisoning but Captain Fuchida was spared. When the end of the war came, Captain Fuchida was most enraged by the last-minute declaration of war by Soviet Russia. It was a dishonorable "stab in the back" that he would never forget and it encouraged him to join with the rebel faction that wished to continue the war. However, he was able to speak to HIH Prince Takamatsu who told him that it was the will of the Emperor that there be peace and this convinced Fuchida, dutiful above all else, to accept the surrender. It probably saved his life.

After the war, things were difficult for him as they were for almost everyone. He resented the occupation and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials where he was called to testify. However, he also heard first hand accounts from close friends that caused him to see his old enemy in a new way. He heard from men who had been captured that the Americans had not tortured them and one group talked about a girl volunteer who helped take care of them even though her parents had been killed by the Japanese during the fighting in The Philippines where they had been working as missionaries. The story of an American veteran of the "Doolittle Raid" who had been captured by Japanese forces but who bore no ill-will toward his captors also intrigued him. After being introduced to Christianity, he began to study the religion further and in 1949, after reading the Bible completely for himself, Captain Fuchida converted to Christianity (Protestant Evangelical). This set his life on a new course from that time on.

Captain Fuchida came to be widely known in the Christian evangelical movement in Japan and the United States. He traveled extensively in America and became friends with the America's most famous evangelist Billy Graham. His story touched the hearts of Americans who had been taught during the war to view the Japanese as wicked and treacherous enemies. That a man like Captain Fuchida could become a Christian and view them as his brothers and sisters illustrated that they had allowed hatred to overcome them. This man from the outside had showed them what they should have known all along and Captain Fuchida became very famous and beloved in the Christian evangelical community in the United States. He also visited Europe and was horrified by the stories of the poverty and oppression from the other side of the "Iron Curtain". It reinforced his view that communism was a fundamentally evil doctrine, in the eyes of man and God alike. Although he lived in the United States for a time, Captain Fuchida lost none of his old loyalties. He said, "When I became a Christian, I remained a patriot of Japan. I still love my country and my people." He worked to convert people to Christianity all over the world and hoped for peace but he knew that the nature of man would mean war would not go away and so he also stated that he thought Japan should have its own nuclear weapons to deter any acts of aggression by other powers.

Fuchida Mitsuo died in Kashiwara on May 30, 1976 after a lifetime of dedicated and successful service. As a naval officer, he had served his country to the best of his ability and contributed to some of the greatest victories in Japanese military history. As an evangelist he had won hundreds of converts to Christianity by his sincerity and powerful personal story. His devotion, to his country and his God also helped to heal the wounds of war and bring Japan and the United States closer together on a personal level. From start to finish his life had been one of service and he pursued every goal, in war or peace, with zealous dedication.

Imperial Remembrance of Bombing Victims

Today, Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress placed flowers at the Tokyo Memorial Hall in honor of the victims of the Allied bombing in World War II. The occasion was the 70th anniversary of the "Great Tokyo Air Raid" and the hall contains the ashes of roughly 105,000 victims of the bombings. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, mostly civilians, were killed in the conventional bombing raids on Japanese cities, many more than were killed in the two atomic-bomb attacks actually. After the war, at the war crimes trials in Tokyo and Nuremberg, no Axis officials or military personnel were convicted of war crimes for bombing civilian targets. The reason for this, of course, was simple; the Allies had bombed civilians themselves and did not want their people to face charges, so the issue was not taken up.

Japan, Comfort Women and How to Lose an Argument

For those who do not know, “comfort women” is the term used to describe prostitutes who served the old Imperial Japanese Military at military brothels which were known as “comfort stations”. Originally, these were comfort women were all Japanese but after the Japanese annexation of Korea they came to include Korean women as well. During World War II, as Japanese forces conquered southeast Asia, other nationalities became comfort women as well. These comfort women are at the center of a long-standing dispute between Japan, South Korea and to a lesser extent Red China (they mostly do funding and let the Koreans do the public activities). Activists on the Korean side have claimed that this was an institutionalized system of sex slavery run by the Imperial Japanese Army and the Japanese government and that hundreds of thousands of women were sexually enslaved, raped and abused by the Japanese in and around World War II as a matter of official policy (an important point). Many Japanese dispute this and some quite vociferously so. However, those who do have done themselves more harm than good and, in the end, are helping the anti-Japanese crowd more than anyone.

An event that happened recently in the United States concerning this issue is a good object lesson in exactly what NOT to do if you want to be persuasive in turning people to your way of thinking. Everyone can benefit from this. It should be stated at the outset that, when it comes to the comfort women issue, there are plenty of facts and more just plain common sense on the side of the Japanese. I have spoken about this issue before (elsewhere) and have looked into both sides of the argument. The problem with the Japanese side is not so much in their facts as their presentation. So, here is the first important tip for anyone trying to win an argument or convince someone of something: know who you are trying to persuade and why. The Japanese making this argument have had a very hard time when it comes to getting their story straight. All too often they lose focus by trying to deny that Japan ever did anything wrong that they get off topic and lose credibility by trying to argue that they alone have been pure and blameless at all times. This becomes an issue when dealing with the comfort women, as we shall see. They also do not seem to know exactly who they are trying to convince of their point of view. In this case, the primary target is Americans and recent events have shown just how badly this was not understood.

In recent years, Sino-Korean organizations have erected comfort women statues in American cities. These have all been very leftist areas and done in cooperation with the local governments. Many in Japan were very upset by this and, originally, many Americans were inclined to side with Japan. Leftists, feminists and minority pressure groups were always on the Sino-Korean side and are never going to be anything else but most Americans, and especially conservative Americans, were inclined to side with Japan, even knowing nothing about the issue. It caused quite a stir in the news and most Americans had no idea why these statues were being set up. What did any of this have to do with the United States? No one knew, and mainstream Americans, especially those on the right, dislike immigrant groups bringing feuds from their former countries to the United States. Japan got another boost of sympathy when Korean communities in certain areas began pressing people such as the state government of Virginia to change American textbooks to rename the Sea of Japan the “East Sea” (as it is known in Korea). Japan was well placed to win such arguments. The comfort women issue had nothing to do with the U.S. and caused unnecessary divisions and ugly scenes. Many Americans disapproved.

However, then along comes a young, far-right Japanese filmmaker named Yujiro Taniyama. He decided to hand the Sino-Korean pressure groups an easy victory by making this issue America’s business when he made a very long documentary on the subject and came to debut it at Washington Central University. The result was a disaster of face-palming proportions. In looking into this person, after the fact, this should not have come as a surprise to anyone and illustrates why the far-right in Japan is their own worst enemy. They don’t know what they are arguing “for” nor do they seem to know exactly “who” they are trying to win over with their arguments. Many have tried to reach western audiences with their perspective by supporting western writers who will spread their point of view. However, this has invariably resulted in an echo-chamber in which the only people listening are the people who already agree. Examples include people like the now elderly Henry Scott Stokes from Britain and Michael Yon from America, people who criticize their own country but have nothing but praise for Japan. As one can well imagine, such views go over well in Japan but not so well in Britain or America. If, for example, you are trying to persuade people in Britain to listen to both sides in the comfort women argument, the leftists are a lost cause and for the conservative, proud British people, Henry Scott Stokes is going to offend more than persuade with his constant portrayal of Japan as the only righteous country in World War II, the “light of Asia” that liberated oppressed people from the terrible slavery of the British Empire. Yeah, that’s not going to be a big hit with proud, Queen and Country Britons. One Max von Schuler-Kobayashi is another example, a man who says he is an American (living in Japan) but who is the most virulent anti-American one can imagine. He is not going to persuade anyone in the United States of anything.

When Yujiro Taniyama came to WCU to screen his film, had anyone looked into his past remarks, they would know immediately that, despite his fluency in English, he was not the right person to be making this case. Some at the university did and immediately there was an effort to put together a rebuttal forum to held alongside the screening of his film. The title of the film alone would put people off, it was called “Racist America: The Scottsboro Girls”. One would think it goes without saying but an important tip in making an argument is not to start off by insulting the very people you are trying to persuade. When you begin by calling people “racists” or their country “racist” they tend to stop listening or will take a very negative view of anything you say after that. Allow me to describe in detail exactly what happened because, as mentioned, it was a perfect example of what NOT to do at absolutely every step.

Mr. Taniyama showed up wearing an American flag baseball cap and bib-overalls. He looked like he was going trick-or-treating as a “redneck”. Right off, this will offend people who thinks he is a redneck and it will offend rednecks who think this foreigner is mocking them. Before screening his film, Taniyama spoke at great length, almost to the point of saying everything the film would say before it showed. He did two very damaging things; he made the comfort women issue an American issue and he insulted everyone in the United States. He also decided to make this something racial and, when looking into his past remarks, this is not too surprising as he has spoken numerous times on the “White people are all racists” theme. However, he made it still worse for himself by the title of his film alone, first by calling America racist and then by borrowing the name of the infamous “Scottsboro Boys” case from American history. This was a case in which a group of Black men were accused of raping some White women who were later found to have been lying about the incident. The title alone managed to offend both White and Black Americans.

Additionally, in this vein, his casual use of the “n-word” did not help either. He did not call anyone that, but it is not a good thing to say, especially for someone in his position. This may have been a misunderstanding but when it doubt it is best not to use such a controversial word at all. Some older Americans, for comparison, see nothing wrong with the term “Jap” anymore than they would the term “Brit” to refer to someone from Britain. However, Japanese people consider this a racist term and it would not be a good idea to go to Japan and make a speech in which you toss around the term “Jap”. It should not take much cultural understanding to know this was not a good idea. During his long speech, he also made numerous “jokes” that were sure to inflame both sides of the political spectrum in America. He made cracks about Hillary Clinton, offending liberals, feminists and Democrats as well as cracks about buying guns at Wal-Mart, offending conservatives, NRA members and Republicans. He complained about the liberal media trying to silence him, offending the left, and mocked Fox News, offending the right. His insulting remarks about the comfort women themselves did his cause no good as basically calling unfortunate, elderly women a bunch of whores just makes you look bad, not them. He also attributed opposition to his point of view to “evangelical feminists” which would offend left-wing feminists and right-wing Christians at the same time.

The result of all of this was that many people walked out before the film even started. By the time he finished ranting only 15 to 20 people remained in the room. Contrast this to the at least 200 people who attended the nearby anti-Japanese rebuttal forum, staying for the duration. Which side came away the winner is easy to see. Why was this? The Korean side played on feelings of compassion, pulled at the heartstrings and, very importantly, did not openly insult their audience. They also had a single, consistent narrative. Mr. Taniyama had some facts too but these do little good if your presentation turns people away from even listening to you and the result is that the Sino-Korean side came away looking like the innocent, sympathetic victims and Japan, the most successful East Asian country and the most venerable monarchy in the world, came away looking an America-bashing country of anti-White racists. “Blame the racist White people” seems to be a favorite tactic of Mr. Taniyama as seen in this tweet that was brought to my attention regarding an appearance he made on the anti-western Al-Jazeera network:

This is something easy to sell in certain quarters but it is precisely in those quarters where the Japanese conservatives are never going to win any support while alienating those who ARE most inclined to listen to and sympathize with them. Know who you are trying to persuade.

As to the facts of the matter at issue, comfort women were, by and large, sex workers and not sex slaves. Some were not, some were abducted and some were treated viciously and they deserve sympathy. However, to argue that the comfort women system was part of some government-organized sex slave business is completely untrue. Mr. Taniyama quoted a few university historians (from a country he called racist) to back this up but it would not convince many people. Nor is it necessary as simple common sense would tell most people, if they can be persuaded to listen, that Japan would not be able to forcibly abduct and confine 200,000 women while at the same time fighting a world war. It is not an argument, in my view, Koreans should make (as they are most often associated with it). Koreans were not the only comfort women, Koreans served in the Japanese military and availed themselves of the services of the comfort women the same as the Japanese did. Japan issued an apology for this in the past and paid reparations to the Korean government for this, in fact to the President of Korea who was the father of the current President of Korea. I just don’t think it is a good or healthy subject to try to make into an international issue, just from a Korean perspective. Any country should desire to be respected rather than pitied and, to me, no one connected with this issue comes away from it unsullied.

It would have been better, certainly for Japan, if this had remained simple a Korean-Japanese issue but people like Mr. Taniyama succeeded in making it an American issue as well. This is where controlling your message and keeping focused comes into play. First, he made it an American issue by blaming it on “American racism” which was not smart. Secondly, in an effort to spread the blame around, he asserted that American forces made use of comfort women after World War II. Which is true, though they were not Koreans, they were Japanese prostitutes that the government recruited to basically take care of the American occupiers to prevent them from raping decent Japanese ladies. There was some of that, as there always will be. However, Mr. Taniyama and many on his side often hold up as evidence an American army report from 1944, during the war obviously, that stated that the comfort women were prostitutes or “camp followers” (of which there is a long tradition) rather than sex slaves. That would be a compelling piece of evidence were it not for the fact that these same people accuse the American government and military of being flagrantly dishonest and deceptive and of using comfort women themselves. It undermines their own argument that the U.S. report, made during war time, must have been true since they would not have lied in Japan’s favor since they also claim that the U.S. did lie about everything bad they say Japan did and that they were using comfort women as well. By trying to make the U.S. military complicit in the act, they also give the U.S. a good motive to say that the comfort women were sex workers rather than sex slaves. You can’t have it both ways.

The truth is that most comfort women were sex workers just as there are sex workers today and all through history. It is also true that some were not, some were forced into it by elements in the military and treated horribly. Some Japanese have admitted this and expressed deep sorrow over it. However, the question of the willingness of the women involved to work at comfort stations is a difficult one. Even for those who were paid and given good treatment, most women in the sex industry, then or now, are not there entirely willingly. No little girl says she wants to be a hooker when she grows up. They deserve sympathy and not insult. Many, then as now, are forced into prostitution by poverty, family pressure or other reasons. During the war, some were forced in by the military but it was not a matter of official policy. Some people in Japan have made this case in the west and made it very well. The best example I have seen, about 98-99% perfect I would say, was Mr. Yoshihisa Komori who was interviewed on CNN by an obviously skeptical Fareed Zakaria in 2007 (you can watch the interview here). He did almost everything right. He did not insult his audience, he did not show contempt for the comfort women nor did he deny that some were abducted and abused and that he was very sorry for that and what happened to these unfortunate women. Still, he calmly related that this was not part of an official policy and that Japan was being held to a different standard than other countries. He said, basically, that it was a terrible wrong that had been done, Japan was sorry for that and paid reparations for it but it was not official policy, not something to condemn all Japanese for all time over. And he was perfectly correct.

Since then, Mr. Komori has been rather frustrated that his side of the story has not taken hold in America or other western countries. Part of the problem is that the excellent work of several gentlemen like Mr. Komori can all be undone by the antics of one Taniyama and those like him. For the Korean side of the argument, as I have said, I don’t think this is something that serves them well to make an issue of, they were as complicit in what went on as the Japanese in those days when Korea was part of the Japanese Empire. However, for the Red Chinese it is a very transparent effort at undermining the Japan-U.S. alliance which blocks their desired expansion. Certainly they will never be able to grab the Senkaku Islands as long as the alliance is in effect. But, as stated at the outset, if you are going to have a debate, it is important to keep in mind your ultimate purpose in the debate and toward this end many Japanese on the far-right score own goals. They revert back to a World War II mindset in which America is the enemy, “White” people, Europeans and European-Americans are all racist imperialists and they do a better job of undermining the alliance than the Red Chinese ever could by such outdated and one-sided rhetoric. If the goal of Red China is to break up the U.S.-Japan alliance and isolate Japan from friendly western countries, these people and their western supporters are being a great help to them. And, of course, the more sensational, the more media coverage.

It is also important to understand who is most likely to be receptive to your point of view and hear you out. In the United States (and the United Kingdom and probably others) there is a very tight bond between the radical feminists and the far-left. This had led to the Democratic Party campaign accusing their Republican opponents of waging a “war on women” and this has only increased with the latest presidential campaign for Hillary Clinton. Obviously, the American left is not going to want to hear anything that Japan has to say about the comfort women issue. It also doesn’t help that we have known since the Bill Clinton administration that they have received large donations from the Red Chinese. However, for all of these reasons, conservatives in America would be all the more likely to listen to and understand the Japanese side of the argument. However, that potential for cooperation is destroyed by going off into other issues, anti-American statements and accusations of racism. It is also the right in America that most believes in opposing Communist China and supporting Japan, yet this can easily be undermined by anti-American, anti-western or anti-White people in general statements from people on the far-right in Japan and their western spokesmen. It does no one any good but those who are the real enemies of both Japan and America and even Europe.

All would be better advised to follow the example of the Japanese Imperial Family. His Majesty the Emperor has never hesitated from expressing his support for proper, healthy patriotism in Japan, flying the flag, singing the anthem, honoring forefathers and the sacrifices of those who have served their country and august monarch. He has also never hesitated to express regret for the war, a very sublime attitude to take; no accusations, no recriminations, simply sorry that such a horror ever happened and resolution that it not happen again. Earlier this year, on the occasion of his birthday, His Imperial Highness the Crown Prince said, “I myself did not experience the war…but I think that it is important today, when memories of the war are fading, to look back humbly on the past and correctly pass on the tragic experiences and history Japan pursued from the generation which experienced the war to those without direct knowledge.” Many took this as a criticism of the far-right but it is simply good, sound, wise advice. Do not ignore misdeeds but do not wallow in guilt and recriminations. To not cover up and do not exaggerate, be truthful, reflective and learn from the past. Terrible things did happen during the war and practically no one escaped with clean hands but a tragedy is something to be remembered solemnly and not used as a club to beat innocent people with today. His Majesty the Emperor and the Imperial Family, as always, set a matchless example that all others would do well to follow.

Japanese Film Backfires in America

Recently the young man filmmaker Yujiro Taniyama debuted a film dealing with the comfort women issue at Central Washington University. The result was a much larger demonstration of opposition to Japan. The Chinese communist goal of causing division between Japan and America was given a boost because of this film and a lack of understanding of American culture and politics. The film was called "Racist America: The Scottsboro Girls". If the intention of the filmmaker was to tell Americans the Japanese side of the comfort women story and convince them that there was no official policy for the systematic enslavement of women by the Imperial Japanese Army, it failed completely. If the desire was to help communist China by causing division between the people of America and Japan, weakening the alliance between the two countries, it was much more successful. After the incident, more people heard the anti-Japanese, Korean version of the comfort women story.

Why was this? Anyone who knows the facts will understand that it is ridiculous to claim that Japan was able to keep 200,000 women as sex slaves. The filmmaker presented numerous facts to support this. However, facts have no impact if no hears them. People have to first listen in order to hear those facts and people will not listen if they are first insulted. That is what this filmmaker did by calling Americans "racist" and invoking the name "Scottsboro Girls" which is a reference to the "Scottsboro Boys" which is a term for a group of Black men who were accused of raping two White women in America many decades ago. It is a painful and sensitive subject in the United States. The American writer, Michael Yon, who has made similar statements, reviewed the film and stated that it went too far even for him and warned that it would be counter-productive to the Japanese goal of refuting the "sex slave" version of the comfort women story. You can read his post on the subject (in English and Japanese) on his page here. With this film, it is not a case of there being any incorrect information in regards to the comfort women issue but rather the way it is presented and who is presenting it to the people in the United States. Again, if you start by insulting the American people, calling them "racist", they are not going to listen to what you have to say.

This is exactly what happened to this filmmaker. After his speech, only about 20 people remained to watch his movie, the rest left during his opening remarks. However, about 100 people attended a rebuttal discussion held at the university by Korean activists giving an anti-Japanese point of view. Why the difference? One easy difference is that the pro-Korean view meeting did not begin by insulting the audience they were trying to win over. Unfortunately, this filmmaker, Yujiro Taniyama, has a habit of making insulting remarks about Americans. As he recently tweeted prior to an appearance on the Islamic Al-Jazeera network:

Such remarks only help those who wish to portray Japan as a "false friend" of the United States and not a trusted ally, which is the Red Chinese goal. This will infuriate Americans on both the left and the right, Black Americans and White Americans the same.

Leftists and Black Americans will be outraged simply by the title, using the memory of the "Scottsboro Boys" for an issue not having anything to do with Black Americans. It is always a controversial issue whenever anyone tries to compare their situation with that of Blacks in the United States. On the other side, to the right, White Americans will be equally outraged at being called "racists" and blaming Americans for the comfort women issue. Similar to Japanese difficulties with Korea and China, White Americans are often confronted with accusations of racism based on issues of history long in the past. There are also many on both sides and both Black and White who will resent what appears to be a foreign young man stirring up racial antagonism in the United States over a past issue that causes both sides pain and anger. None of this helps Japan but rather it greatly helps the Chinese communists and Korean enemies of Japan who want to divide Japan and the United States, especially at a time before Japan has fully revised Article 9 and become as militarily strong as possible. This film has already caused damage and given Japan a negative image in the United States. Whether or not that was the intention, it has been the result. It is simply a question of taking sides; to be on the side of the Americans and Japanese who want a strong alliance or the side of the Red Chinese who want the alliance to end and isolate Japan on the world stage.