| 'Let's meet at
Kudan' (九段で会おう),
'Goodbye, the next time we meet will be at
Kudanzaka' (お別れも、今度会う日は、九段坂)
– these were the last words exchanged between
kamikaze pilots and their comrades before
embarked on their suicide missions, as well as
messages written by graduates of the kamikaze training during their farewells. 'Kudan' or 'Kudanzaka'
refers to the location of Yasukuni Jinja. What
is it about this place that exerted such a powerful
pull, leading soldiers of the time to choose
death over surrender? And how is this
magnetic force connected to Yasukuni Jinja? |
| |
| In this
article, I will not only share my personal
sightseeing experience but also explore some
historical background and engage in discussions
on various topics. These
include the process of enshrining war
criminals; the legitimacy of the International
Military Tribunal for the Far East; the
relationship between Yasukuni Jinja and politics; the role of the Indian judge at the tribunal, Pal, who denied Japan's war crimes; the
Emperor's responsibility in the war; the
cultural differences between Chinese and Japanese
attitudes toward the deceased; and, the
perspectives
of neighbouring countries. |
| |
| A quick
note: this is a rather lengthy article.
Sections on sightseeing will be written
in the default font colour,
while historical background and discussions will
be in blue.
Any inaccuracies found in the shrine or its
associated exhibition, the Yûshûkan, will be
marked in red.
If you're only interested in the sightseeing
experience, feel free to skip over the blue
sections. |
|
|
|
|
|
Leaving Asakusa, walk for around 10 minutes to reach Tawaramachi
(田原町) station, where I can take the Tokyo Metro Ginza Line
to Nihombashi (日本橋). After that, change to the Tôzai Line
and alight at Kudanshita (九段下) station. From Exit 1, walk
straight for about 3 minutes, and I will arrive at
Yasukuni Jinja (靖国神社). |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Tokyo Metro Ginza Line train (Tokyo Metro fleet
Series 1000) |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Tokyo Metro Tôzai Line train (TRTA fleet Series
07) |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Exit 1, Kudanshita station |
|
|
|
|
Yasukuni Jinja is a Shinto shrine dedicated to those who sacrificed
their lives for the nation (or more precisely, for the Emperor),
including 14 individuals convicted as Class-A war criminals by the
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE or Tokyo Trial) following World War
II. This particular aspect is the main point of contention surrounding the Shrine. |
|
|
|
Due to the New Year holidays, many local
Japanese people were visiting Yasukuni Jinja today to pay their respects,
alongside quite a few tourists coming to see the site as well. |
|
|
|
Yasukuni Jinja and the Alluring Power of Preferring Death Over
Surrender |
| |
|
Following the Meiji Restoration, in a bid to solidify the legitimacy
of the Emperor's rule, the Meiji government introduced the
policy of State Shinto (国家神道), where shrines were managed and
operated by the state, and Shinto became the essential
'faith' for all Japanese citizens. The Meiji government declared
that 'Shinto' was not a religion, but a 'belief' expressing
traditional morality and patriotism. While the Constitution
of the Empire of Japan guaranteed freedom of religion, the
'Shinto' belief was positioned as transcendent, with no other
religion allowed to contradict it. |
| |
|
According to Shinto belief, Amaterasu Ômikami (天照大御神) is the
ruler of all gods, and the Japanese Emperor is said to be a direct
descendant of Amaterasu, meaning the Emperor is not a human but a
'living god', a divine being existing among humans, and the
highest earthly ruler. Everyone is expected to be loyal to the
Emperor and to act in accordance with his will. The Emperor's position is
considered even higher than that of the European monarchs, who are seen as
divinely chosen yet remain human. The Japanese Emperor, on the
other hands, is the son of a god – he is a god, not a human. |
| |
|
Yasukuni Jinja was also established by the Meiji government to
enshrine those who died in service of the country (and the
Emperor). Every year, the Emperor personally visits the shrine
to kneel and pay his respects, making it the only place where
the reigning Emperor kneels in worship, aside from previous
emperors and Amaterasu. This is the source of the Japanese
soldiers' obsession with death over surrender; even if one
did not die in battle, choosing seppuku (ritual suicide) would
elevate their soul to the status of a divine being, to be
worshipped even by the Emperor. Surrendering, however, would
bring disgrace. This is the influence of State Shinto. |
| |
|
The
Process
of Enshrining War Criminals |
| |
| Yasukuni Jinja became a controversial topic, but not immediately after Japan's
defeat in World War II. The controversy began with this man –
MATSUDAIRA Nagayoshi (松平 永芳), the 6th Gûji (chief priest) of the
shrine, who included 14 Class-A war criminals among those
enshrined. Matsudaira was military officer, having reached the
rank of Lieutenant Commander (海軍少佐) before Japan's defeat. After
the war, he joined the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force and
retired with the rank of Colonel (1 等陸佐). He later became the director
of the Fukui City History Museum (福井市立郷土歴史博物館). However, no single person can
be solely credited with causing any historical event;
understanding the broader context of the time is essential. |
| |
| In the 1950s, the families of war criminals began requesting
the enshrinement of their relatives, and later formed the
Japan War-Bereaved Families Association
(日本遺族会). In 1953, the Ministry of Justice classified war
criminals who were executed or who died while serving their
sentences as 'perish in duty', thus providing them with a 'ticket' to
be enshrined at Yasukuni Jinja. In 1956, the Ministry of Health
and Welfare (MHW) began arranging the enshrinement process
with the shrine, but in order to minimise public backlash, the
process was kept low-profile. Between 1959 and 1967, Yasukuni
Jinja performed multiple soul-conducting and enshrinement
rituals for Class-B and C war criminals. Only invited family
members were allowed to attend, and these events were not
publicly disclosed. |
| |
|
Yasukuni Jinja does not provide individual ihai (位牌, memorial
tablet). Instead, it has a register listing the names of those
enshrined – the Reijibo (霊璽簿, Symbolic Registry of Deities).
First, the shrine performs a ritual to invite the souls of the
enshrined back to the shrine. Then, during the enshrinement
ceremony, their names are recorded in the Reijibo, officially
making them deities worshipped at the shrine. |
| |
|
Since the Class-B and C war criminals were relatively unknown to
the public, and because the shrine handled the process
discreetly, the enshrinement was completed quickly. But what
about the Class-A war criminals? These were all high-profile
figures, and their enshrinement became a political minefield for
the shrine. As early as 1966, the MHW submitted a list of 12
Class-A war criminals to the shrine. However, the Gûji at the
time,
TSUKUBA Fujimaro (筑波 藤麿), believed that the enshrinement
of Class-A criminals should be approached with great caution and
not rushed. Therefore, during his tenure, there was no progress
on this matter. |
|
|
|
On 20th March 1978, Tsukuba passed away, and Matsudaira
succeeded him as Gûji on 1st July. Due to Matsudaira's personal
background and the impatience of the bereaved families,
Matsudaira secretly enshrined the 14 Class-A war criminals on
17th October 1978, just three months after assuming his
position. Even the sitting Prime Minister at the time, FUKUDA
Takeo (福田 赳夫), who visited the shrine the following day, only
found out about the enshrinement after his visit. The number of
individuals enshrined was two more than the 12 names submitted
by the MHW, including MATSUOKA Yôsuke (松岡 洋右) and NAGANO Osami
(永野 修身), both of whom had died before their sentences were
handed down. |
|
|
|
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East |
|
|
|
Matsudaira and many right-wing groups in Japan generally reject
the rulings made by the IMTFE (Tokyo Trials), which was composed
of the Allied powers. As the victorious nations that had endured
painful wartime experiences, it is understandable that the
Allies would feel vindicated by the tribunal's decisions.
However, from an objective standpoint, the Tokyo Trials can
certainly be
controversial. |
|
|
|
First, the judges and prosecutors were all from the Allied
powers, with even neutral countries being excluded. Moreover,
the tribunal only held the defeated nations accountable for
their actions and responsibilities, while making no mention of
the inhumane acts committed by the Allied forces, nor did it
pursue the responsibility of Emperor Shôwa (昭和天皇). Additionally,
the 'law' used in the Tokyo Trials – the IMTFE Charter – was a
retroactive law, violating the widely accepted judicial
principle of not applying laws retrospectively. |
|
|
|
Even among the Allied nations, there were critics of the
fairness of the trials, including the American diplomat George
F. Kennan, who had served as the Director of the Policy Planning
Staff at the US State Department, as well as US Ambassador to
the Soviet Union. Kennan argued that the Tokyo Trials had no
legal foundation, but were merely a continuation of wartime
actions and were unrelated to justice, and thus should not be
cloaked in the guise of legal procedure. However, he was not
sympathetic to the war criminals; rather, he pointed out the
hypocrisy of masking military actions with judicial formalities.
He believed that military matters should be resolved by military
means and suggested that the more appropriate approach would
have been for the Allies to executed war criminals
immediately upon capture. |
|
|
|
There were also voices within the tribunal itself that
questioned the fairness of the Tokyo Trials. One of the most
notable critics was the Indian judge,
Radhabinod Pal. This figure will be
discussed further later in the article. In addition to Pal, the
French judge Henri Bernard and the Dutch judge Bernard Röling
also agreed that the Tokyo Trials were not entirely fair. |
|
|
|
While Japan's war crimes are well-documented in textbooks, the
question remains: did the Allied forces have their own dark
history? There are documented cases of the Nationalist Chinese
Army, the British Army, and the American forces abusing or
killing Japanese prisoners of war. The Nationalist Chinese Army
even engaged in the mass killing of civilians who had been
forced into submission by the Japanese military, kidnapping
local men to serve in the army, and enslaving forced labourers
to the point of death. The American forces were also responsible
for widespread sexual crimes in Japan. On the surface, these
crimes were investigated internally by the Allies, and where
necessary, referred to military courts, but in reality, the vast
majority of such cases were left unresolved. |
|
|
|
So, what exactly are Class-A, B, and C war criminals? There are
the categories used by the Allies in dealing with the defeated
nations. Class-A refers to those who committed the 'crimes
against peace', Class-B refers to 'war crimes', and Class-C
refers to 'crimes against humanity'. Only 'war crimes' are
governed by pre-existing international treaties, such as the
Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions. The 'crimes
against peace' and 'crimes against humanity' were created by the
Allies as post-facto laws to deal with the defeated nations. The
Class-A, B, and C classifications are simply categories and do
not necessarily indicate the severity of the crimes committed.
It was only the Class-A war criminals who were processed by the
Tokyo Trials. |
|
|
|
The Tokyo Trials certainly provided a sense of justice for the
countries that suffered from Japanese aggression, but that does
not mean they were entirely just. At the same time, they also
provided an excuse for right-wing factions in Japan, who,
through the tribunal's perceived injustices, used it as a basis
to completely deny Japan's war crimes. |
|
|
|
A Shrine Surviving in the Political Gaps |
|
|
|
Japanese politicians, particularly the Prime Minister, face
strong condemnation from China and Korea whenever they visit
Yasukuni Jinja. In fact, the issue surrounding Yasukuni Jinja's
existence, whether or not to visit it, and the reactions follow
such visits, often seem to be more about politics than history
or religion. |
|
|
|
Since the end of the war, the fate of Yasukuni Jinja has been a
political tug-of-war between the US and Japan, and even between
the US and the Soviet Union. When the Allied forces occupied
Japan, there were plans to abolish Yasukuni Jinja. The American
military saw it as a symbol of State Shinto and militarism,
believing it should be completely eradicated. However, at the
same time, there were voices in the US arguing that 'the
religious freedom of a defeated nation should not be trampled
upon'. |
|
|
|
After extensive negotiation between the shrine and the General
Headquarters of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ),
the GHQ eventually agreed to allow the shrine to remain as an
independent religious entity, severed from the state. On the
surface, this appeared to spare Yasukuni Jinja from abolition. However, behind the scenes, the GHQ secretly prohibited the Japanese
government from transferring the state-owned land on which the shrine stood to Yasukuni,
effectively forcing its relocation. Without a suitable place to
go, the shrine was expected to 'naturally fade away'. |
|
|
|
However, in 1951, a turning point came: the GHQ unexpectedly
agreed to transfer state-owned land to the shrine. The reason?
Politics. By then, the Cold War between US and the Soviet
Union was intensifying, and the US feared that being too harsh
on Japan might push she towards the communist bloc. After all,
behind the shrine were over two million bereaved families, and any
anti-American sentiment could give the Soviet Union an
opening to gain influence. |
|
|
|
China often accuses Japanese politicians of visiting Yasukuni
Jinja solely to garner support. There is, perhaps, some truth in
this, as it's common for political figures to act with political
motives. The tradition of Prime Ministers visiting the shrine
has been long-established, continuing even after the
enshrinement of Class-A war criminals. It's not merely reaction
to sudden political needs. After all, behind Yasukuni Jinja
stands a group of people whom even the US dares not challenge –
the bereaved families – and politicians cannot afford to ignore
them. |
|
|
|
Earlier, I briefly mentioned the Japan
War-Bereaved Families Association, the country's largest
association of war bereaved families, representing over 1.4
million households and a membership exceeding 8 million people.
Though this makes up only 8% of the electorate, it can still
play a pivotal role in elections when necessary. Right-wing
individuals tend to support the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP),
and the party finds it easier to maintain the loyalty of these 8
million 'hardcore' supporters than to try to win over ordinary
voters. A visit to Yasukuni Jinja serves this purpose well. Of
course, political figures do not visit the shrine purely for
political calculation, but political motivations certainly play
an indispensable role. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, when Japanese political figures visit
Yasukuni Jinja, it often provokes a strong reaction from China,
which, in turn, garners support from many Japanese citizens. Due
to China's unfriendly stance and the sometimes uncivilised
behaviour of Chinese tourists, the Japanese public has long held
a negative view of China. What they support is not necessarily
the act of visiting the shrine itself, but rather the
provocative gesture that elicits an overreaction from China. |
|
|
|
For China and Korea, especially those struggling with internal
issues, the common tactic is to shift attention abroad,
exaggerating the threat of a foreign adversary. In these
countries, this strategy works remarkably well. The visit of a
Japanese politician to Yasukuni Jinja is almost a gift. Among
all the countries that Japan invaded, only two react strongly,
and the whole nation unites in the condemnation. Meanwhile,
domestic issues seem to vanish, as if the ongoing issue of
Yasukuni Jinja provides a convenient distraction, allowing
people to focus on external matters rather than internal ones. |
|
|
|
Over the years, many have suggested different ways to resolve
the issue surrounding Yasukuni Jinja, including separating the
enshrinement of war criminals or establishing new secular
memorial facilities. Yet, all of those proposals have come to
nothing. Perhaps the reason for this is that resolving the issue
might not benefit all sides. Rather than being a purely
religious site, Yasukuni Jinja has become a stage for political
theatre. The war criminals believed that, after their deaths,
they would receive the Emperor's veneration at the shrine. Yet,
the long-awaited visit from the Emperor never came after the
enshrinement of the Class-A war criminals. Ultimately, they
became political tools, which, in some ways, is rather tragic. |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Daiichi Torii (The First Torii Gate) |
|
|
|
|
The
Daiichi Torii (第一鳥居) was erected in 1921. Described in a poem as
'the great gate that seems to pierce the sky', it quickly became a popular
landmark. However, due to years of damage caused by exposure to elements, the gate was removed in 1943. The current torii was dedicated in
1974 by comrade-in-arms and worshippers. |
|
|
|
This is the largest torii in Japan, constructed using the latest
weather-resistant steel technology. The columns stand 25 metres tall, with
a diameter of 2.5 metres, while the top crossbeam (kasagi, 笠木) measures
34 metres in length, with a diameter 2.7m, weighing 100 tonnes. It is
designed to withstand an earthquake registering up to 7 on the Japan
Meteorological Agency Seismic Intensity Scale (approximately a Magnitude
9.0) and winds of up to 80 metres per second without swaying. Its
expected lifespan of 1,200 years is truly remarkable. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Statue of Family Members Seeing Soldiers Off to
War |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Memorial Monument to the Hitachimaru |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Monument to the Fallen Soldiers of the Tanaka
Detachment |
|
|
|
|
The Hitachimaru Incident (常陸丸事件) occurred during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904.
At the time, the Japanese military was preparing for the naval
operations against Russia. Lieutenant Colonel SUCHI Genjirô (須知
源次郎) led the military transport ship Hitachimaru, which departed from Ujina Port (宇品港) with
the intention of heading to the battlefield. On 15th June, when the Hitchimaru reached the vicinity of Okinoshima (沖ノ島), it was attacked by
a Russian warship. As the Hitachimaru was not a warship, it had no
means of retaliation and was sunk instantly. Around 1,000 people,
including Lieutenant Colonel Suchi and Navy Commander YAMAMURA Yashirô
(山村 弥四郎),
perished in the attack. |
|
|
|
The Memorial Monument to the Hitachimaru was originally located in
Chidorigafuchi Park (千鳥ヶ淵公園), but after World War II, it was removed due
to concerns that it might 'stimulate hostile sentiments among the public
and harm international friendship'. In 1965, the memorial was restore in
Yasukuni Jinja. |
|
|
| On 25th February 1919, the 72nd Infantry Regiment (Tanaka
Detachment), under the command of Major TANAKA Katsusuke (田中 勝輔), took
part in the Siberian Intervention, join the Allied Powers'
effort from World War I in the Russian Civil War. They supported
the White Army, led by the Tsarist forces, in their struggle
against the Bolshevik Red Army. The Tanaka Detachment found
itself surrounded by an enemy force vastly superior in number,
and tragically, nearly all its members were killed in action. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Irei No Izumi (慰霊の泉, Soul-Comforting Spring) |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Statue of OMURA Masujirô |
|
|
|
|
The
Statue of ÔMURA Masujirô (大村益次郎銅像) was completed in 1898
following a donation from his disciples. It was Japan's first
Western-style bronze statue and quickly became a prominent landmark in
Tokyo. Standing at 12 metres, it was created by the sculptor ÔKUMA
Ujihiro (大熊 氏廣). |
|
|
|
Ômura is often referred to as the 'Father of the Japanese Army'. Born in
the Chôshû Domain (長洲藩, now part of Yamaguchi Prefecture), he was
well-versed in Western studies and played a crucial role in the
establishment of the Meiji government, helping to lay the foundations
for Japan's modern military. Ômura also proposed the creation of the
Tokyo Shôkonsha (東京招魂社), a precursor to Yasukuni Jinja. On 13th August 1869,
while inspecting military facilities in the Kansai region, Ômura was
assassinated by samurai opposed to military reforms at an inn in Kyoto.
He was gravely wounded and died on 5th November, aged 47. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Ishi Torii (The Stone Torii Gate) |
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Daini Torii (The Second Torii Gate) |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The
Daini Torii (第二鳥居) was completed in 1887 and is the largest
bronze torii in Japan. The columns appear seamless, and it was cast
using the most advanced technology of the Meiji era, at the Osaka
Arsenal's reverberatory furnace. |
|
|
|
In front of the torii stand two stone
Giant Lanterns (大灯籠), each 13 metres tall, making them among the
largest granite lanterns in Japan. The base of each lantern is adorned
with reliefs depicting scenes from the First Sino-Japanese War (日清戦爭)
and the Mukden Incident (満洲事変). The left lantern features reliefs
depicting the Army, while on the right one depicts scenes of the Navy,
with seven reliefs on each side. These were created by four artisans
under the supervision of MASAKI Naohiko (正木 直彦), Director of the Imperial Art
Academy (帝国芸術院). After World War II, because the reliefs were
associated with militarism, the GHQ initially ordered the lanterns
to be dismantled. However, the Shrine managed to protect the reliefs by covering them with cements, thus preventing their
destruction. After the end of the occupation, the cement was
removed, and the reliefs were restored to their original state. |
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Ôtemizusha (Main Purification Fountain) |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Shimmon (The Gate of Gods) |
|
|
|
|
The current
Ôtemizusha (大手水舎), the main purification fountain, was donated
in 1940 by an association of Japanese veterans
residing in the United States. Made of granite, it weighs 18 tonnes. The
previous purification fountain, donated by the Tsu Domain (津藩) in 1869,
originally stood in the same location but has since been relocated to
the interior of the Sanshûden (参集殿). |
|
|
|
The
Shimmon (神門), the main gate and entrance to Yasukuni Jinja, was
completed in 1934. The gate's door panels stand 6 metres tall, and the
doors are inlaid with a Royal Chrysanthemum Seal, measuring 1.5 metres
in diameter. The petals of the chrysanthemum design symbolise the rays
of the sun. Since the early Meiji era, the 'Double 16-Petal
Chrysanthemum' has been the official seal of the Royal Family. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Yasukuni-no Sakura (Cherry trees in Yasukuni) |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
The sample tree for Japan Meteorological Agency
announcement of cherry blossoming |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Nogakudô (Theatre of Noh) |
|
|
|
|
Passing through the Shimmon, one enters an area known as 'Yasukuni-no
Sakura' (靖国の桜), which is one of Tokyo's most famous cherry
blossom viewing spots. The ground are home to 500 cherry trees of the
Somei Yoshino variety (prunus × yedoensis) and they attract up to 500,000
visitors each year. The Japan Meteorological Agency also uses a 'sample
tree' at the Shrine to announce the cherry blossom bloom status.
However, I won't find cherry blossoms in winter! |
| |
|
Next to Yasukuni-no Sakura stands the
Nôgakudô (能楽堂), a Noh theatre. Noh is a major form of classical
Japanese dance-drama. The theatre was established in 1881 at Shiba Park
(芝公園)
to preserve and develop Japan's traditional Noh art. In addition to Noh
performances, the theatre also hosts various traditional arts and
martial arts events during major occasions such as New Year's, the
spring and autumn festivals, and the Mitama Matsuri (Soul Festival). |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Chûmon Torii (The Central Torii Gate) and
Haiden (the Main Hall) |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Sanshûden (Assembly Hall) |
|
| |
|
Directly in front of the Haiden (Main Hall) is the
Chûmon Torii (中門鳥居), which was originally a door gate. The
current torii, donated in 2006 by the Bussho Gônenkai (佛所護念会), a
Buddhist organisation, is made from cypress wood sourced from Saitama
Prefecture, with the trees being approximately 500 years old. |
|
|
| The
Haiden (拝殿) was built in 1901, the same year as the birth
of Emperor Shôwa (Hirohito). Groups of bereaved families,
comrades, and worshippers from across the country perform
purification rites in the Haiden before proceeding to the Honden
(本殿, the main sanctuary). For general visitors, 'worship'
typically takes place in front of the Haiden. |
|
|
|
Behind the Haiden is the Honden, where the 'heroic souls' from the late
Edo period through World War II are enshrined. The Honden was
constructed in 1872 and designed by the architect ITÔ Heizaemon (伊藤
平左衛門). Only those participating in the 'formal worship' are permitted to
enter the Honden. Behind the Honden stands the Reijibo Hoanden (霊璽簿奉安殿),
which houses the Symbolic Registry of Deities. Currently,
around 2,000 volumes of Reijibo contain the names of approximately
2.4 million 'heroic souls'. |
| |
|
The Amulet Office is where visitors can purchase sacred items, such as
charms, omamori (御守), and fortune slips, as well as various souvenirs
and publications. Adjacent to it is the Sanshûden, which serves both as
the entrance for 'formal worshippers' and as a resting place for them. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Memorial Statue for Honouring Horses |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Memorial Statue for Carrier Pigeons |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Memorial Statue for Dogs in Warfare |
|
|
|
|
Between the Sanshûden and the Yûshûkan museum stand three bronze
statues, each commemorating animals that served during wartime: horses,
carrier pigeons and dogs. |
|
|
|
The statue honouring horses is a life-sized bronze depiction of a horse
in battle, dedicated to the horses that lost their lives on the
battlefield. It is estimated that around 200,000 horses perished during
World War II. Erected in 1958 through public donations, the statue was
created by the sculptor ITÔ Kunio (伊藤 国男). |
|
|
|
The statue of carrier pigeons, unveiled in 1982 and titled 'Pigeon and
Earth', honours the messenger pigeons that played a vital role during
wartime. The tower accompanying the symbolises the hope for world peace
and is dedicated to the pigeons' invaluable contributions during the
war. |
|
|
|
The statue of dogs, erected in 1992, commemorate the German Shepherd
dogs that served as loyal companions to soldiers during the war. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
The facade of Yûshûkan (the original entrance) |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
The current entrance of Yûshukan |
|
|
|
|
Adjacent to the Sanshûden is the
Yûshûkan (遊就館), a war museum affiliated with Yasukuni Jinja. The
museum's exhibits and explanations are presented entirely from a
Japanese perspective, which has led some critics to describe it as 'the
worst military museum in the world'. In 2006, under pressure from the
US, the museum revised certain aspects of its content. |
|
|
|
The idea for the Yûshûkan originated in 1877, proposed by then
Minister of the Army, YAMAGATA Aritomo (山縣 有朋). It was intended to
showcase the noble deeds of those enshrined at Yasukuni and display
historical weapons and military equipment. The first Yûshûkan was
completed in 1881 and opened on 25th Februry. However, it was severely
damaged by the 1923 Great Kantô earthquake (関東大震災) and had to be
dismantled and rebuilt. Construction of the new building began in 1930,
was completed the following year, and the museum reopened on 26th April
1932. |
|
|
|
In May 1945, the museum suffered further damage during the Bombing of
Tokyo, with many of its exhibits destroyed. After Japan's defeat in
World War II, the Yûshûkan was shut down, bringing on end to its 64 years of
operation. It was subsequently requisitioned by the Allied forces and
repurposed as the headquarters of Fukoku Life Insurance. Plans for the
museum's restoration began in 1980, and it officially reopened in July
1986. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
The free temporary exhibition 'New Year Sword
Exhibition' (新春刀剣展) |
|
|
|
|
The side facing the Sanshûden originally served as the main entrance to
the Yûshûkan, featuring a plaque inscribed with the name 'Yûshûkan' in
Japanese by Kotohito, Prince of Kan'in (閑院宮 載仁親王), the younger
blood brother of Emperor Meiji. Prince of Kan'in served as the Chief of
the Imperial General Staff from 1931 to 1940 and was a significant
figure during World War II. However, he passed away before Japan's
defeat and did not face the Tokyo Trials. |
| |
| In 2002, a new glass entrance hall was added to mark the
130th anniversary of the Shrine's founding, and this now serves
as the current entrance to the museum. |
| |
|
The Yûshûkan is spread across two floors, with only the Entrance Hall being
freely accessible. Connected to the Entrance Hall is an exhibition space
that hosts temporary displays; on the day of my visit, the exhibition is
the 'New Year Sword Exhibtion'. Admission to other sections costs
JP¥1,000 for adults. Additionally, aside from the Entrance Hall and the
Great Exhibition Hall, photography is prohibited in most of the
exhibition areas. In the Entrance Hall, you can find displays such as a
Zero Fighter Model 52, a C56 steam locomotive, a Type 89 15cm cannon,
and a Type 96 15cm howitzer. |
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Mitsubishi Type 0 Carrier-Based Fighter Model
52 |
|
| |
| The Type 0 Carrier-Based Fighter, colloquially known as the
'Zero Fighter' Model 11, was officially introduced into service
in 1940. The aircraft made its first combat sortie in September
1940, engaging in aerial battles with Soviet-made Chinese
aircraft over Chungking (重慶, now known as Chongqing). The Zero
successfully shot down most of the Chinese planes with no losses
on the Japanese side, achieving unprecedented success and
briefly being hailed as the world's most powerful fighter
aircraft. |
| |
| The model on display at the museum is the Zero Fighter Model
52, an improved version of the original. Compared to the earlier
models, the wings were shortened and redesigned with a more
curved shape. It was also equipped with the 'Sakae 21' engine
and a thrust-type single exhaust pipe, which significantly
increased its flight speed, making it the most important and
advanced version of the Zero fighter. |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Class C56 steam locomotive on display was manufactured by Nippon
Sharyo in 1936 and was initially served in the Nanao locomotive district
in Ishikawa Prefecture. During World War II, 90 C56 locomotives were
requisitioned for operations in the southern theatres. This particular
locomotive, No. 31, participated in the inauguration of the Thai-Burma
Railway. After the war, it continued to serve with the State Railway of
Thailand. Following its retirement is 1977, it was purchased by members
of the Japanese South Army field unit, who had been involved in the
construction of the railway. In 1979, it was donated to Yasukuni Jinja. |
|
|
|
In 1942, to facilitate the Japanese Army's advance into Burma and India,
a railway was constructed connecting Nong Pladuk in Thailand to
Thanbyuzayat in Burma, covering a distance of 415 km. The railway was
built to Japan National Railways specifications, with the 5th and 9th
Railway Regiments responsible for its construction. According to the
museum, around 170,000 Allied prisoners of war and local residents were
forcibly conscripted to build the railway, though the actual number may
have been varied. |
| |
| The museum presents the following information: 'The
railway was completed at an astonishing speed, opening
in October 1943 after just one year and three months of
construction. The British had also considered building
this railway, but due to various reasons, it was never
realised. The construction was incredibly
difficult, with harsh terrain and extreme tropical
conditions.' (This part is written in Japanese only.)
This narrative suggests that the Japanese accomplished what
the British had planned but could not realise.
However, it is important to note that Burma was
a part of British Empire at the time, and the British had
intended
the railway for practical purposes related to their
imperial needs. In contrast, Japan constructed the
railway solely its military objectives, so the two situations are not
directly comparable. |
| |
| The rapid construction came at a tremendous human cost. Up
to 250,000 Southeast Asian civilians were forcibly
conscripted or a abducted to work on the railway, many from India, Malaya, Burma, and Thailand. Of
these, 90,000 died during construction. Additionally,
Allied prisoners of war were subjected to forced labour
in violation of the Geneva Conventions, with 12,000 soldiers
dying as a result. Due to the staggering death toll,
the Thai-Burma Railway became known as the 'Death
Railway'. |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Type 89 15cm cannon and Type 96 15cm howitzer |
|
|
|
|
The Type 89 15cm cannon and the Type 96 15cm howitzer on display both
saw action during the Battle of Okinawa. After the war, they were
maintained by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force and the US military in
Japan before being donated to Yasukuni Jinja for exhibition. |
|
|
|
After viewing the exhibits in the Entrance Hall, visitors are directed
to the exhibition areas on the 2/F. Unfortunately, photography
is prohibited inside these areas. The first section briefly explores the
spirit and history of Japan's martial culture, displaying swords, armor,
and other martial artefacts from ancient times through the Edo period.
The museum then provides a chronological account of key
events in Japanese history, including the Meiji Restoration, the Satsuma
Rebellion (Japan's last civil war), the construction of Yasukuni Jinja,
the First Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Mukden
Incident, the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the Greater East Asia War. |
|
|
|
The museum also features special exhibitions on the three Emperors of
the Meiji, Taishô, and Shôwa eras, showcasing artefacts related to each
of these monarchs. Additionally, there are displays explaining the
Shrine's ritual of summoning spirits. Towards the end of the exhibition,
there is a section dedicated to the personal belongings of fallen soldiers.
Finally, visitor reach the Great Exhibition Hall, where they can view a
range of modern military equipment. This is one of the few areas where
photography is allowed. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Navy dive-bomber 'Suisei' |
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
The Atsuta 21 aircraft engine for 'Suisei' |
|
|
|
|
The 'Suisei' (彗星) was the last naval bomber officially adopted by the
Imperial Japanese Navy in December 1943. A total of 2,157 units were
produced before the end of the war. Due to the changing dynamics of the war,
many of these bombers were converted for use as fighter aircraft or
kamikaze (suicide attack) planes, resulting in the loss of most of the
fleet. |
| |
| The 'Suisei Model 11' displayed at the museum was discovered
in 1972 in the jungles beside an old runway on the Caroline
Islands in the western Pacific. In 1980, the aircraft was sent
to the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force's Kisarazu Airbase for
restoration. It was then donated to Yasukuni Jinja on 5th
April 1981. |
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
Rocket Powered Glider 'Ohka' |
|
| |
|
Hanging above the 'Suisei' is the rocket-powered kamikaze
aircraft, the 'Ohka' (桜花), specifically designed for
suicide attacks. The term 'kamikaze' (神風), literally means 'divine wind',
refers to 'special attacks' – a euphemism for suicide missions.
As Japan's situation worsened in the latter years of the war,
the military adopted a strategy of 'one man, one craft,
one bomb for one ship', primarily launching suicide attacks
against American warships. Initially, these missions were
carried out by ordinary fighter planes loaded with fuel and
explosives, which would then crash into enemy ships. The units tasked
with these operations were called the 'Kamikaze Special Attack
Corps' (神風特攻隊). |
| |
| However, the heavy losses of aircraft and experienced pilots
led to the development of a dedicated aircraft for suicide
missions: the 'Ohka' Model 11, introduced in 1944. Rather than a
conventional plane, the 'Ohka' was more akin to a manned
air-to-ground missile. Its front was armed with a 1.2-ton TNT
warhead, and its rear was fitted with a rocket engine. The
aircraft could reach speeds of 630 km/h and, during a dive,
could exceed 1,040 km/h. However, its range was only 36 km, and
it had no landing gear. The cockpit door could not be opened
from the inside, meaning the pilot had no way of escaping,
making the mission a one-way trip. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
| ▲ |
The interior of 'Kaiten' |
|
| |
| Just as there were suicide attacks from the skies, there
were also similar acts at sea. The 'Kaiten' (回天), a manned
suicide torpedo, was developed based on Japan's first
oxygen-powered torpedo, the Type 93 Model 3. It was designed to
sink large enemy ships, particularly Allied battleships. The
Japanese Navy began officially using the Kaiten towards the end
of the Pacific War in 1944. |
| |
|
The name 'Kaiten', which translates to 'return to heaven',
symbolised the final hope in a losing cause – a desperate
decision to reverse the tide of war at the cost of one's life.
The torpedo was intended to be piloted directly into enemy
vessels, and the mission was always a one-way trip, with the
pilot effectively sacrificing themselves in an attempt to achieve a
decisive strike. The Kaiten on display at the museum was
originally housed at the US Army Museum in Hawaii. With the help
of the Kaiten Association, the US permanently loaned the torpedo
to Yasukuni Jinja in October 1979, where it has been preserved
and exhibited ever since. |
| |
 |
| ▲ |
The stone plaque of Nankai Jinja |
|
| |
|
'The Stone Plaque of Nankai Jinja' (南海神社社号碑) is the exhibit at
Yasukuni Jinja most closely associated with Hong Kong. During
the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, the occupying authorities
established at least 2 shrines on Hong Kong Island: Hong
Kong Jinja and Nankai Jinja. The Hong Kong Jinja was located in
what was then renamed 'Taishô Park' (大正公園), now known as the
Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens. Construction of the
shrine began
in 1942, and it was completed on 8th February 1945.
However, shortly after its completion, Japan announced its
surrender, and with the Liberation of Hong Kong, the Hong
Kong Jinja was dismantled. |
| |
|
The Nankai Jinja was established at the Japanese military's Hong
Kong Island Fleet Headquarters (the original Victoria Barracks).
It was built to enshrine the spirits of Japanese soldiers who
died during the 'Battle of Hong Kong'. After Japan's surrender,
the British Army resumed use of the Victoria Barracks and
carried out renovations, but the stone plaque of Nankai Jinja
remained in place. In 1978, just before the barracks was
relocated, the British Army proactively contacted Japan to
ask if they wished to take the plaque. Since similar plaques
from other occupied territories had all been destroyed, this one
had become particularly precious. Japan readily accepted the
offer, and the monument was subsequently displayed at the Yûshûkan. |
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Memorial Statue of Kamikaze Pilot |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
80 pound bronze cannon, originally built in
Shinagawa Fortress |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Memorial Monument for Escort Ship |
|
| |
 |
| ▲ |
Memorial Statue of War Widow with Children |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Radhabinod Pal, often referred to as the 'incompetent judge' due to his dissenting opinion, was the only one of
the 11 judges at the Tokyo Trials to acquit all 28 Class-A war
criminals, declaring them 'not guilty'. As a result, he gained
significant
regard in Japan, particularly among nationalist and right-wing
circles. In recognition of his position, Yasukuni Jinja erected a
monument in his honour. The inscription (in Japanese only) on the
monument reads as follows:- |
|
|
| Dr Radhabinod Pal, as the judge representing
India at the 'International Military Tribunal
for the Far East', established in Tokyo in May
1946, devoted himself to the immense task of
researching and analysing voluminous historical
materials related to the trail, without concern
for any other matter, until the conclusion and
judgment in November 1948. |
| |
| Dr Pal was the only judge among the eleven
appointed by the Allied nations who was an
expert in international law. At the same time,
he was a man of passionate conviction in
upholding the justice of the law, possessing
profound historical insight on civilisation. |
| |
|
Dr Pal saw the 'Tokyo Trials' as merely a ritual
of barbaric revenge by the victorious Allied
nations against a now powerless, defeated Japan.
He demonstrated that the Allied prosecution,
riddled with factual misjudgments, had
absolutely no legal basis, and publicly issued a
vast opinion declaring all of the defendants not
guilty. |
| |
|
As he stated in the conclusion of his opinion,
now that the fervour for revenge among the
majority of the Allied nations and the
historical prejudices have gradually subsided,
his ruling has come to be recognised as an
established principle in the international legal
community of the civilised world. |
| |
|
We hereby commemorate the courage and passion of
Dr Pal, who upheld both the justice of the law
and the truth of history, and we establish this
monument to engrave his words as a precious
legacy for the people of Japan. Through this, we
seek to transmit his great achievements for all
eternity. |
|
|
|
|
| Firstly, Pal was the judge who missed the most days of the
trial among the 11 judges. The trial lasted for 466 days, during
which Pal was absent for 109 days to visit his sick wife. The
second-highest absentee was the presiding judge of the tribunal,
Sir William Webb from Australia, who missed 53 days. Pal even
submitted his resignation to Allied Commander Douglas MacArthur,
but it was firmly rejected. While there may have been
understandable reasons for his absences, whether he was truly
'without concern for any other matter' is open to
interpretation. |
| |
| Secondly, Pal was not an expert in international law. He was
originally a lawyer specialising in commercial taxation and only
served as a judge at the Calcutta High Court between 1941 and
1944. Afterward, he became the Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Calcutta, a position he held until 1946, when he was
appointed as a judge for the Tokyo Trials. His legal career as a
judge was extremely brief. It was only after becoming involved
in the Tokyo Trials that Pal began studying international law,
and his appointment to the tribunal was the result of a series
of events (which is precisely why MacArthur rejected his
resignation). |
| |
|
Although the concerns raised by Pal, including the issue of ex
post facto law and the organisation of the tribunal, may have
been legally valid in theory, the majority still reject his
ruling. It is by no means 'recognised as an established
principle in the international legal community of the civilised
world'. |
|
|
|
|
Pal's Appointment |
| |
| In the initial draft of the IMTFE Charter, the number of
judges was limited to nine, representing the Allied nations that
signed Japan's surrender documents, including the US, the
Republic of China, Britain, the Soviet Union, Australia, Canada,
France, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. However, India raised
an objection, arguing that Indians were also victims of Japanese
atrocities and had contributed to the war effort. Therefore,
they claimed, India was more qualified to appoint a judge than
countries such as France or the Netherlands. They also pointed
out that the tribunal was composed entirely of white judges and
stressed the importance of including representatives from other
racial backgrounds, beyond just the Chinese. |
| |
| At the time, however, India was still a British colony and
not yet an independent nation. The original 9 judges had
already been deemed sufficient, and the US strongly opposed
adding another judge. Eventually, India lobbied Britain for
support, and with backing from Britain, New Zealand, Australia,
and Canada, the US reluctantly agreed to include India in the
Charter. The Philippines, also a non-sovereign territory at the
time, was similarly included. This raises the question of
whether the Charter of the tribunal was, in fact, a 'moving
goalpost'. |
| |
| India successfully secured a seat for a judge, but
internally, there was little enthusiasm for the appointment, and
no judge was initially willing to take on the role. After more
than a month of deliberations, India eventually appointed Pal,
simply because he was the only one willing to accept the post.
The Tokyo Trials were originally expected to last six months,
but as the trial progressed slowly, Pal eventually submitted his
resignation. Given the controversy caused by India's effort to
secure a judge, it was unthinkable for them to back out at this
stage, so his resignation was, of course, rejected. |
| |
|
Pal's Errors |
| |
|
When India pushed for the appointment of a judge, it raised a
left-wing argument, namely that all the judges, except for
Chinese representative, were from white nations. Yet, Pal
himself made a ruling that contradicted the Indian government's
position, and his reasoning was also left-leaning. Pal was an
anti-colonialist who believed that colonisation was a form of
bullying by stronger nations against weaker ones. Similarly, he
viewed the Tokyo Trials as an instance of victorious nations
bullying a defeated Japan. However, wasn't Japan itself engaging
in a form of colonisation when it invaded other, less-developed
Asian countries? |
| |
|
India followed the Common Law system, which contrasts with the
Civil Law system. In Common Law countries, judges are not only
required to interpret written statutes but also to base their
rulings on customs, traditions, and morals. A key feature of
Common Law is that judges must write detailed judgments, which
include various points of view on the case. These
'precedents' then become part of the law. In this way,
judges act not only as decision-maker but also as lawmakers. |
| |
|
As the Common Law system gives judges considerable
influence over the law, they must come from a background in
law, typically having been practising lawyers. This differs from
Civil Law countries, where judges can be trained solely in
judicial processes. In simple terms, judges in Civil Law
countries are like examiners, grading cases according to written
guidelines, without necessarily needing a deep understanding of
the subject matter. However, Common Law judges require a
thorough understanding of the case content in order to make
informed decisions. |
| |
|
Pal's objection to ex post facto law, viewed from a Civil Law
perspective, is entirely understandable. This is why his opinion
found support from judges in France and the Netherlands, who
adhered to Civil Law traditions. However, as a judge from a
Common Law background, Pal should have been able to make a
judgment based on reason and morality, even in the absence of
specific guidelines under the IMTFE Charter. |
| |
|
Additionally, Pal questioned why only the defeated nations were
being prosecuted while the crimes of the victorious nations were
being ignored. He argued that the IMTFE itself was an inherently
unjust institution. While it may be possible to agree with this
view from an objective standpoint, the role of a judge is not to
decide on the legitimacy of the tribunal itself but to judge the
cases brought before them. Even in a regular criminal court, it
is the prosecutor's responsibility to decide whom to charge. A
judge does not control the prosecution's decisions. If Pal
believed that the tribunal itself was unjust, he should never
have accepted the appointment in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
The Role of the Emperor |
| |
|
Compared to the issue like ex post facto law and the lack of
prosecution for Allied war crimes, the most widely criticised aspect of the Tokyo Trials by Western
scholars is the fact that Emperor Shôwa was not
indicted. From a personal perspective, I don't agree
with the idea that 'the Emperor is innocent', but I do
acknowledge that not prosecuting him was
politically necessary, and that he played a significant
role in Japan's wartime actions. |
| |
|
Those who argue for the Emperor's innocence claim that
after the Meiji Restoration and the establishment of the
Constitution of the Empire of Japan, the Emperor became
merely a 'ceremonial monarch' under a constitutional
monarchy, and that wars were not initiated by his direct
orders. While Japan did emulate Britain in areas such as
the Royal Family and diplomatic protocol, as well as industrial
and technological advancements, the country's model for
constitutional reform was not Britain, but Germany. Like
Germany, the Japanese Prime Minster was appointed by the
Emperor, and the ministers of state (the Cabinet) were
accountable to the Emperor, not to the Imperial Diet
(the Parliament). The Emperor had the power to reject
decisions made by the Parliament, and the military was
directly under his command. |
|
|
|
Although the Mukden Incident was initiated by the
military without the Emperor's direct approval, once it
was successful, the Emperor gave his compliment. After the
invasion of China began, every action taken by the
military was reported to the Emperor, and many senior
military positions were held by members of the Royal
Family. The orders to use biological and chemical
weapons also came from the Emperor. The claim that 'the
Emperor was unaware of the reality of the war' is simply
untrue. Even if some argue that the phrase 'in the
Emperor's name' was a mere formality and that the
cabinet led the decisions, the Emperor's failure to
oppose the atrocities can be seen as tacit approval, and
thus he bears responsibility. |
|
|
|
After World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm II was deposed, but
this paved the way for Adolf Hitler. The Emperor of
Japan held a far higher position in the hearts of the
Japanese people than the Germen Emperor did in Germany.
If the Emperor had been removed, it would not only
collapse the symbolic pillar of the country, but it would
also have brought calamity to those within the imperial
institution and beyond. The cost of removing the Emperor
would likely have been far greater than creating another
Hitler. This is one of the reasons why the US was
relatively gentle with post-war Japan: there were no
massive territorial concessions or reparations, and the
Emperor was not held accountable. |
|
|
|
Americans are pragmatic, and it was seen as more
beneficial to retain the Emperor than to dispose
of him. By leading the nation in expressing regret and
remorse for the war crimes, the Emperor helped, though
not entirely halting the rise of right-wing thinking, to
significantly curb the nation's slide toward extremism.
Emperor Shôwa's decision to stop visiting Yasukuni Jinja
after the Class-A war criminals were enshrined there,
followed by the actions of Emperor Emeritus Akihito
(上皇明仁) and the current Emperor Naruhito (徳仁), who also
ceased visiting, signalled a decisive move to prevent
the expansion of right-wing forces. |
|
|
|
Cultural Differences between Chinese and Japanese Attitudes toward the Deceased |
|
|
|
In traditional Chinese culture, it is believed that
criminals should be 'denied a burial place' (死無髒身之地) and
'never be reincarnated' (永不超生). The consequences of their
wrongdoings must be borne not just by them but also by
their descendants, even after death. However, in Japan, there is a
completely different perspective on life and death.
Japanese culture holds that once a person dies, their
sins are erased, and even those who have committed
heinous crimes should be venerated after death. |
|
|
|
Take the case of
SAIGO Takamori (西郷 隆盛), a key figure in the Meiji
Restoration. Initially a prominent leader, he fell out
of favour with Emperor Meiji in 1873 due to a
disagreement over the invasion of Korea. Along with
others who supported the Korean campaign, Saigo was
forced to retire. He later gathered followers in Kyûshû
(九州) and led a samurai rebellion, which culminated in
the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877. Despite leadingf the rebellious forces, Saigo was posthumously
venerated, with multiple 'Nanshû Jinja' (南洲神社) dedicated
to him. |
|
|
|
Some may argue that Saigo's contributions to the Meiji
Restoration justify his veneration, but what about
foreign invaders? The Mongol invasions of Japan in 1274
and 1281, carried out by the Yuan Empire, were
undoubtedly acts of aggression. Yet in Fukuoka, there is
a shrine called 'Genkô Jinja' (元寇神社), dedicated to
the Mongol soldiers who died in Japan. This illustrates
a cultural tradition in Japan of venerating the deceased,
regardless of their actions in life. |
|
|
|
In comparison to the veneration of war criminals, I
believes the more significant issue with Yasukuni
Jinja lies in the inaccuracies within the content it
displays. |
|
|
|
Attitudes
of Neighbouring Countries |
|
|
|
While it's true that some of the narratives in the
Yûshûkan may be questionable in terms of their accuracy,
the modern weapons on display undeniably highlight the
remarkable transfomration that Japan underwent after the
Meiji Restoration.
The development of heavy industry not only matched the
Western world but, in some cases, surpassed it. In
contrast, what about China? Once revered by neighbouring nations,
offering tribute and imparting wisdom, China eventually fell from its pedestal
and
become an object of scorn, easily manipulated by
others. For over a century, China has been driven be
resentment toward external forces, yet it has failed to
genuinely reflect on its own stagnation and
shortcomings. |
|
|
|
It's important to remember that Japan's Meiji Restoration and
China's Self-Strengthening Movement occurred
simultaneously, but Japan succeeded where China faltered,
largely due to arrogance and resistance to change. Even
today, many in China oversimplify the failure of that
era, attributing it solely to Empress Dowager Tzu-Hsi
(慈禧太后) misappropriating funds meant for the navy to
build the Summer Palace (頤和園). However, they fail reflect on how
both the government and society, at all levels, were
deeply sceptical of Western culture and
technology. The Self-Strengthening Movement centered on
preserving traditional Chinese ideals, selectively
adopting Western technologies. In contrast, Japan's
Meiji Restoration involved a full-scale embrace of Westernisation,
followed by a selective incorporating of traditional Japanese culture. |
|
|
|
Earlier, I mentioned that China and South Korea have
been the
most vocal in criticising Japan. In my view, they are
the least qualified to do so. If you search online for
'Japan does not apologise', most of the results come
from China. Has Japan really not apologised? From the
Emperor to the Prime Minister, Japan has officially apologised many
times. In fact, Mao Zedong once expressed
frustration with the repeated apologies, ironically turning it into a form of gratitude towards
Japan, stating that without Japan's aggression, China
wouldn't have easily gained power. Supporters of Mao
claim this is 'dark humour', but he was
hardly known for his comedic sense. Even your own
leaders have suggested that there have been too many
apologies. Does this country still have the right to
criticise Japan for a lack of apology? |
|
|
|
Now let's turn to Korea. Today, South Korea stands at the height of its
cultural influence and is a global trendsetter. But
when it comes to politics and history, I have little
repect for that country. South Korea often
presents itself as a victim, yet it was actually a
perpetrator during World War II, not a victim. There
were many soldiers of Korean descent in the Japanese
military, and even the Crown Prince Yi Un (李垠) of the
Korean Empire held the rank of lieutenant general in the
Japanese Army.
Numerous other members of the Yi Royal Family also
served in
the Japanese military. |
|
|
|
According to many elders who lived through the wars, the
immoral behaviour of Korean soldiers during the war
often surpassed that of Japanese soldiers. Does such a
country have the right to criticise others? |
|
|
|
Japan once invaded other countries due to its inherent
disadvantages, plundering resources and committing
numerous inhumane acts. But today, Japan, after modernising and
undergoing rapid post-war economic growth, has worked
tirelessly to compensate for its past wrongs. Japan may
have even become an object of envy for other nations.
The right-wing street demonstrations, which are often
ridiculed
by locals, are now the only spiritual reminders
for the far-right forces. These demonstrations and their
conflicts with anti-war protesters, which occur on Shinto festival
days at Yasukuni Jinja, serve as proof that
Japan has moved away from its past obsessions and is now
walking the path of democracy and freedom. |
|
|
|
Totalitarianism inevitably leads to tragedy. Totalitarianism
encompasses not only militarism but also National
Socialism (Nazism), fascism, and
communism. When one
finger is pointing at others, we should always pay
attention to where the other fingers are pointing.
Today's Japan is an open, democratic, and civilised
nation, and the countries we should truly be wary of are
those that continue to yearn for totalitarianism and
harbour hostility towards others. |
|
|
中文版請按此 Date: 7th January 2025 (Tuesday) After ch...
中文版請按此 Date: 2nd January 2025 (Thursday) Today marks the e...
中文版請按此 Date: 4th January 2025 (Saturday) ...
No comments:
Post a Comment