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.