A blogger at Travellers Tales, the blog of the once mighty Far Eastern Economic Review, has a rather shocking post on his recent visit to The Dreaded Shrine. I knew its museum was a sickening cesspool of revisionism, but I admit I didn’t think it was this extreme.
Yasukuni’s Filth
TT visited the infamous Yasukuni shrine today, where Japan honors not only the footsoldiers who fought valiantly and died for their country, but also the war criminals who led the country into war and were responsible for appalling atrocities against civilians and prisoners of war. The highlight of any visit to the shrine is the Yushukan Museum which seeks to justify all of Japan’s aggression around Asia as self-defense. Like many propaganda efforts, the museum is most remarkable for what it omits from the historical record. But it also includes some rather disgusting revisionism. Here are a few highlights which show why so many Chinese, Koreans and Southeast Asians are justifiably upset when Japanese prime ministers visit the shrine:Nanking Incident
After the Japanese surrounded Nanking in December 1937, Gen. Matsui Iwane distributed maps to his men with foreign settlements and the Safety Zone marked in red ink. Matsui told them that they were to observe military rules to the letter and that anyone committing unlawful acts would be severely punished. He also warned Chinese troops to surrender, but Commander in Chief Tang Shengzhi ignored the warning. Instead he ordered his men to defend Nanking to the death, and then abandoned them. The Chinese were soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties. Inside the city, residents were once again able to live their lives in peace.Roosevelt’s Strategy and U.S. Entry Into World War II
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt first took office, the U.S. was in the throes of the Great Depression; the economy had still not recovered when his third term began. Early on, Roosevelt had anticipated a major conflict. In 1939, he had resolved to join Great Britain in the war against Germany, but was hampered by American public opinion, which was strongly antiwar. The only option open to Roosevelt, who had been moving forward with his “Plan Victory,” was to use embargoes to force resource-poor Japan into war. The U.S. economy made a complete recovery once the Americans entered the war.
I’ve said before (many, many times) I wished Koizumi would stop visiting this place. To balance that, I’ve also said (many, many times) that these visits don’t merit the hysteria they evoke from today’s Japan-crazed Chinese fen qing.
As a sidenote, when I was in China a few weeks ago there were lots of news stories on CCTV about the Japanese occupation. (It must have been some anniversay of some glorious victory.) Many historians and victims of the occupation were interviewed, and I found it so interesting that virtually every single one of them referred to it as “the Japanese war of aggression against China.” They never referred to it as World War II or even “the war.” It was always the same seven-word mouthful, as though the war were solely against China. So interesting.
Link via Frisko Dude.
1
By David
Eek.
On the name for WWII, I’m not a historian (so feel free to correct me), but isn’t it quite reasonable for the Chinese to call it a war with Japan? After all, they weren’t heavily involved in WWI (so it’s hardly their 2nd war), they basically only fought the Japanese, and the whole thing started for them well before 1939. That it was part of a bigger war involving Hitler & co is pretty much incidental to them isn’t it?
June 16, 2006 @ 12:32 am | Comment
2
By richard
It’s fine if they called it the “war with Japan.” It’s funny (strange) to hear them all repeat that mouthful, “the Japanese war of aggression against China” – and they all say it word for word, at least on CCTV.
June 16, 2006 @ 12:39 am | Comment
3
By Hui Mao
David is right on. There are actually several names that Chinese people use to refer to the Japanese invasion and occupation from 1931-1945.
I’m guessing what you heard is 日本侵华战争 which refers to the entire period starting from Japan’s occupation of Manchuria in 1931.
Another common term used is 抗日战争, i.e. War of Resistance against Japan, and it is typically used to refer only to the period from 1937 to 1945 where China actually actively tried to resist the Japanese invasion and occupation.
BTW, I think “War with Japan” is not used because it is ambiguous since China and Japan also fought a war in 1894-1895 (after which Japan took over Taiwan from China). That war is typically referred to as 中日甲午战争 in China.
June 16, 2006 @ 1:29 am | Comment
4
By richard
I’m not making a big deal out of what they call the war – just saying it was strange to hear each and every person in a TV show use the same exact phrase, in English, not Chinese: “The Japanese War of Aggression against China,” every time they referred to the war. I’ve actually never heard such a long name for any war. There’s nothing wrong or bad about this. Just strange.
June 16, 2006 @ 1:40 am | Comment
5
By Raj
Richard has a point. To say “the Japanese war of aggression against China” in English is strange. Most English-speakers would call it the “Second Sino-Japanese War”.
It’s obviously a propagandist phrase used to motivate emotion over it. (“Aggression”? Oh, right, it wasn’t a peaceful war then………) But I wonder if it’s also in keeping with the new line that it was basically “all China” in that war. We’ve recently heard the new insistance that China played as important a part in the Pacific conflict as the US (yeah, right). Next I guess it’ll be that they won the war and the US “helped”.
Perhaps more disturbingly it could be an indication of the attitude that China suffered the most. Well one could say it did, but some Chinese use this to say “who cares if everyone else has forgiven Japan – we suffered more so we can hate them forever”.
There do seem to be an awful lot of documentaries and programmes about Japan at the moment. Any reason why (it will be 51 years after the war ended this summer – hardly a memorable date)? Is this to try to whip up “constructive nationalism”, rather than have people thinking about domestic problems?
My musings anyway.
June 16, 2006 @ 2:03 am | Comment
6
By Danfried
Richard, are you saying that all of the interviewees were speaking English, and not being dubbed? I find it hard to believe that all the survivors and historians interviewed would be fluent in English! Usually, CCTV9 dubs in English dialogue over Chinese speakers.
抗日战争 is only four syllables — not exactly a mouthful for native speakers.
I think Raj is reading far too much into the name. Many countries have different names for the war. For example, the Japanese commonly call it The Great Pacific War, and the Russians called it the Great Patriotic War.
More importantly, note that the Japanese invasion of China started long before what Westerners consider the start of WWII — it makes sense that they would have their own name for it. It’s not like they should have waited several years after being invaded by the Japanese for the Germans to act before deciding to adopt the “Official Western Name”!
Japanese courts have ruled the visits unconstitutional — but Koizumi ignored both decisions! The biggest newspaper publisher (behind Yomiuri Shimbun and other papers) also opposes them, as do the big Japanese business associations, and — depending upon which poll you believe — most of the Japanese public. That would all make a difference if Japanese was a “normal” parliamentary democracy like Australia or Canada — but in reality it will all come down to who wins the internal LDP leadership race this year.
June 16, 2006 @ 3:32 am | Comment
7
By richard
No, if i remember at least two older people were dubbed. Always with the same long English phrase. Others who were interviewed spoke English. I remember being surprised that different, non-native-English-speaking Chinese people were, when speaking in English, all referring to the war by the same cumbersome English phrase. If those who were dubbed actually used a different term for the war but the dubber translated it into the same phrase, then we know it’s not coincidence but intentional propaganda. I really don’t know.
But look, I was just talking about my surprise at a long strange-sounding name used by multiple people. I don’t attach a lot of significance to it.
June 16, 2006 @ 3:40 am | Comment
8
By Ivan
Indeed, the Russians call it “the Great Patriotic War”, for good reason. But consider the contrast between that name, and the seven-syllable Chinese mouthful: The Russian name for the war emphasises defense of the homeland, whereas the official Chinese-Propaganda name for the war emphasises the aggression of the enemy.
The Russians would never lower themselves to mention the Germans in their name for the war, if you see what I mean? For them, it wasn’t about
the Germans, but about their own homeland. But for China’s propagandists, the memory of the war is more about hating Japan than loving China.
June 16, 2006 @ 4:39 am | Comment
9
By richard
Ivan, it’s actually 13 syllables, and 7 words. I probably wouldn’t have noticed if it was just “the war with Japan,” but as Raj pointed out, throwing in the word “aggression” definitely makes it sound more like a slogan than simply the name of a war.
Back to the shrine…?
June 16, 2006 @ 4:52 am | Comment
10
By Michael Turton
That’s a hell of a thing. I have read the stuff there on Korea says the same thing, blatant lying. But the comments about Nanjing “Inside the city, residents were once again able to live their lives in peace.” are simply incredible.
It’s nteresting to compare this to the Vietnam Memorial in the US, which lists the names of the dead, but gives no political commentary. I’ll be interested to see how we honor our criminal adventure in Iraq.
Michael
June 16, 2006 @ 6:12 am | Comment
11
By Dennis
It sounded like we forced the Japanese into the second world war. I am surprise that Americans don’t scream and yell at them about this.
June 16, 2006 @ 8:30 am | Comment
12
By 88
>Next I guess it’ll be that they won the war and the US “helped”.
I’ve heard this already several times from Chinese I know.
June 16, 2006 @ 8:36 am | Comment
13
By China Law Blog
Wow! One of the lawyers in my office spends about 80% of his time in Asia, mostly China. He is completely fluent in Chinese and speaks pretty good Japanese as well. He is always telling me that the Japanese businesspeople in China have no clue why the Chinese are so angry with Japan. He is saying that these Japense businesspeople truly do not know what Japan did to evoke such anger. Seeing this post, I can now see exactly why this is so.
Thanks for running it.
June 16, 2006 @ 9:20 am | Comment
14
By Darin
I can see why people don’t like certain parts of the ‘museum’ as it is pretty much like any war museum in the world and makes those presenting it into either a) the victims or b) the hero’s but never c) the villain. But I don’t understand the argument that Koizumi going to the shrine justifies the ‘museum’ since he’s not actually going to the museum. Even when he did go to the ‘museum’ which he says is what made him decide to start doing visits to the shrine, he specifically said which part it was that convinced him, and it wasn’t anything about how Japan was a victim or a hero. He said that he read the letters of those who died, specifically the Kamikaze pilots to their parents, and said that we must never forget these lives that were lost as so that this may never happen again. He never said what they did is right, (or wrong for that matter) just that he as a Japanese, and Japanese leader, must never forget the lives that have been lost, and must work so that lives are never lost again.
I think Mr. Turton makes a really interesting point.
> It’s nteresting to compare this to the Vietnam Memorial in the US, which lists the names of the dead, but gives no political commentary.
The shrine itself is like the more like the Vietnam Memorial, in fact part of what’s involved in being enshrined is having the name written on a certain scroll. The political commentary comes not from the ‘memorial/shrine’ but from the ‘museum’ which was built much after the fact…
I guess the problem I have with a lot of the arguments people use against Yasukuni is they are asking for people to do very disrespectful things to the dead soles, something that just isn’t cool. Many others I believe to be confusing the shrine that Koizumi is actually going to and the museum that he is not as one. I don’t have a problem with saying one shouldn’t go to the museum, but I do have problems with people saying one is not allowed to have freedom of religion simply because of the actions of a previous generation. It would be like saying no world leaders are allowed to practice christianity because of all the wars that have had the backing of the christian god over history.
The courts said something similar I believe. They didn’t say he can’t have a religion, it just said that he can’t have a public religion. Until said court decision, he was visiting with the official title of PM, after the court decision, he ‘stopped’ and attempted to make it clear that he was visiting on a private level. People say that he can not just stop being PM whenever it’s convenient, but I believe in the freedom of religion, and don’t think it’s right to take that away from someone just because of their political position.
I have a question for those who are against Koizumi’s visits to Yasukuni though. Are you also against Bush’s going to church, going to church as the President of the United States of America while in China? Do you have problems with him saying one of the reasons he invaded Iraq was, “god told me to”? I don’t have problems with the first two, but I do with the last. Koizumi declaring a holy war on any nations all while being told ‘no’ from the rest of the world. (Yes, I know his country is in Iraq as well, but they are purifying water and building schools, and are also not allowed to fire their unloaded weapons.) If you are not against all three of the questions I posed, yet are against Koizumi’s visits, I think you’re being inconsistent and saying that what he is doing is wrong only because he’s Japanese, but not because it’s actually wrong, otherwise you would be against all other people in the world that follow a religion that has been exploited in a way that lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
June 16, 2006 @ 9:41 am | Comment
15
By Darin
Sorry, I missed an important word in the last paragraph. And I though I previewed it well enough. Sorry.
“Koizumi *isn’t* declaring a holy war on any nations all while being told ‘no’ from the rest of the world.”
June 16, 2006 @ 9:45 am | Comment
16
By Danfried
To clear up some common misconceptions, the Yasukuni Shrine is not a cemetary like Arlington National — there are no remains interred there. It is also not a secular memorial like the Vietnam Memorial — and there are regular demonstrations by right-wing organizations at Yasukuni AGAINST the idea of building any such memorial. Koizumi has ruled out building such a memorial, even though other Japanese have suggested it as a constitutionally valid alternative to Koizumi’s Shrine visits.
Yasukuni was run by the Imperial Japanese Army and the Imperial Japanese Navy during WW2. The same organization runs both the Shrine and the Museum. It is facetious to pretend that the two have nothing to do with each other, or that they have no link to Japan’s militarist past. Note that even though the Emperor was divine under the Shinto religion, Hirohito stopped visiting the Shrine after he learned that the 14 Class A war criminals had been “enshrined” there.
Koizumi had plenty of different _legal_ ways he could have honoured Japan’s war dead — such as visiting a cemetary, or building a memorial — but he chose Yasukuni for a reason. Specifically, to bolster his support among those right-wing members of the LDP who continue to feel that Japan did nothing wrong during the war, and had in fact been “liberating” Asia from Westerners.
Darin, if Koizumi believes a law or Japan’s constitution is wrong, he should get that law changed or the constitution amended. If he thinks the courts have decided incorrectly, he should obey court orders while he makes an appeal to higher courts. It is ridiculous for the head of a democratic state — governed by the rule of law — to argue that the very courts which are entrusted with with interpreting those laws have no right to tell him what to do!
Hmm, perhaps this is one area in which Bush and Koizumi have a lot in common…
June 16, 2006 @ 11:28 am | Comment
17
By Danfried
Oops, I realized one of my paragraphs was confusing. I didn’t mean to imply that the IJA or IJN are still running the Shrine or the Museum! I meant that they are currently run by the same privately funded organization.
June 16, 2006 @ 11:39 am | Comment
18
By t_co
The Yasukuni Shrine will haunt Japan if China becomes the dominant power in East Asia. Historical wounds festering in the minds of 1.3 billion people are inherently difficult to heal–especially if they are reinforced by both domestic propaganda and foreign provocation. Koizumi, like Bush on global warming, is burying landmines for his children and grandchildren to step on.
June 16, 2006 @ 12:09 pm | Comment
19
By Bing
On the war names, I can’t believe the ignorance displayed from supposed “china experts” here.
Like someone already pointed out, 日本侵华战争 started in 1931 and the full war broke out in 1937 when China started the resistence, hence the name 抗日战争.
WWII clearly is a western centric name, it has little resonance with chinese people and it shouldn’t. China was already in a protracted war of attrition with Japan when U.S. entered the war with Japan in 1941.
June 16, 2006 @ 1:57 pm | Comment
20
By Raj
t_co
Do you think the historical wounds festering in the minds of 1.3 billion people concerning Japan are being “helped along” by some people in China, so that the historical wounds festering in the minds of 1.3 billion people concerning the CCP will disappear?
June 16, 2006 @ 4:36 pm | Comment
21
By Danfried
Raj, we of course have all heard that theory. But since the demonstrations last year I think it has been pretty clear that the Chinese government has been trying to cool things down, by shutting down some of the main websites of the Anti-Japanese movement, for example, and preventing any further demonstrations.
Recently, it looks like both the Japanese and the Chinese have been trying to patch up relations and prepare for the post-Koizumi era. For example, the Japanese just announced the resumption of ODA loans to China, which have been tacitly accepted as a substitute for the official war reparations that Japan never paid, and the Chinese have also made conciliatory gestures.
And — contrary to the theory that China will try to maintain poor relations regardless of what Japan does — Hu’s recent comments on the matter indicate that things will improve once the Shrine visits stop. Far from being an “ultimatum”, as distorted in some Japanese press, his comments probably were meant to show that the Chinese won’t try to find some other reason to avoid high level meetings once the Yasukuni issue is resolved.
Even though the Chinese need Japan less and less as other sources of foreign investment are booming, both sides know that the current situation is in neither side’s best interest.
June 16, 2006 @ 7:31 pm | Comment
22
By richard
I agree with most of what Danfried says. The problem is, there are times when the Party seems to want it both ways, extending an olive branch with one hand while subtly keeping the flames alive with anti-Japanese propaganda.
June 16, 2006 @ 7:49 pm | Comment
23
By Danfried
Unfortunately Richard I think that describes just about every government policy in China — different parts of the government are working at cross purposes. I think the government — far from being a monolithic body run smoothly by one dictator — is really a faction-ridden oligarchy.
I noticed in earlier posts you often question whether Hu is an idiot or a genius — for example, in the field of diplomacy. Well, I think he has spent much of his first term just consolidating his power and battling Jiang Zemin’s Shanghai Clique. I think the about-face during the SARS crisis is just one example — Jiang’s clique was in favor of a cover-up while the disease was spreading, while Hu’s faction felt the problem needed to be openly addressed; at least according to the South China Morning Post, the public turnaround was due to Hu winning the day on this issue.
June 16, 2006 @ 9:00 pm | Comment
24
By Raj
Danfried, they only stopped the protests because they thought it might lead to Chinese getting too used to protest in public. If this had been about Tiananmen, they would have stopped them as soon as the banners were unfurled, so it shows that these guys got special treatment to begin with. The security forces also stood back and let a few hundred thugs smash shop windows, pelt the embassy, etc.
If you look at moderation policies on Chinese forums, you can see that you can say more-or-less whatever you like about the Japanese. Bashing-Japan is an acceptable way, as the CCP sees it, of releasing tension. Provided it stays peaceful they’re quite relieved it goes on, I think. They don’t plan it, but they leave it as an open door to go through. So they are indirectly encouraging it.
June 17, 2006 @ 5:42 am | Comment
25
By Raj
Oh, and the fact that Japan bashing used to be blocked in the past shows a proactive change in policy.
June 17, 2006 @ 5:44 am | Comment
26
By Ivan
Did you ever notice how Yasukuni rhymes with Looney Tooney?
June 17, 2006 @ 6:43 am | Comment
27
By Danfried
Raj, I basically agree about the “releasing tension” idea. I said that SOME sites have been shut down — namely the ones that were trying to organize demonstrations or boycotts.
June 17, 2006 @ 7:19 am | Comment
28
By Return
Why are you all so hard on China??
Are you saying Japan did not commit aggression against China??
Chinese people were the victims here. They do have a right to call the war as it is.
June 17, 2006 @ 12:48 pm | Comment