Greater East Asia War as seen from Hideki Tojo's will - Who is a war criminal? Judgment at the Allied Tribunal of Victorious Nations
2023-10-04
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The Charter of the International Military Tribunal is an ex post facto law
At the end of the war, Japan surrendered unconditionally and faced trial by the Allied powers. This trial was based on the Charter of the Far East Military Tribunal, which was created based on the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. The Charter of the Far East Military Tribunal was dated January １９, １９４６, so the rules were created completely after the end of the war, and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal on which it was based was dated August ８, １９４５, just one week before Japan's surrender. It was signed in London by the four Allied nations: Great Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union. In other words, it is a complete ex-post facto law, stipulated for class A-C war criminals, and was created to judge Japan.
Excerpt from Hideki Tojo's will
When I think back to the beginning of the war, I feel truly heartbroken. Personally, I feel comforted by this execution, but my domestic responsibility cannot be atoneed for with death. However, as far as international crimes are concerned, he maintains his innocence. I bowed down before power. As for me, I will go to the prison satisfied with my domestic responsibility. However, it is truly unfortunate that he was responsible for his colleagues, and that his punishment was extended to lower-ranking officers. I deeply apologize to His Majesty the Emperor and the people.
The peoples of East Asia should forget what happened this time and cooperate with each other in the future. East Asian people should have the same rights as other ethnic groups, and should be proud of being a colored race. I cannot help but respect Indian judges. This made him feel proud of the East Asian people.
American leaders have made a huge mistake. What happened was that Japan, the barrier to redness, was destroyed. Manchuria is now a base for redness. The division of Korea into two is the root of the troubles in East Asia. The United States and the United Kingdom have a responsibility to provide relief.
Read it together
Hideki Tojo's grave is located in Migane, Aichi Prefecture - China and South Korea's opposition to visiting Yasukuni Shrine is cultural interference born of ignorance.
Hideki Tojo rests in Migane, Aichi Prefecture
What are China and South Korea demanding
All graves are in separate locations
Shrines are not graves
I think Yasukuni Shrine is a graveyard
South Korea, a country that digs up graves
Yasukuni Shrine throughout Japan
The photo I posted is of the Mausoleum of the Seven Martyrs of Japan, located on Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt. in Nishio City, Aichi Prefecture. It enshrines seven soldiers and politicians who were executed by the Tokyo Tribunal.
Those enshrined are Hideki Tojo, Kenji Doihara, Seishiro Itagaki, Hyotaro Kimura, Iwane Matsui, Akira Muto, and Hiroki Hirota. The remains of these seven people are said to be buried under this mausoleum. In other words, the graves of Hideki Tojo and others are located here.
So what exactly are China and South Korea saying? They say that the Prime Minister should not go to Yasukuni Shrine because war criminals are enshrined there. The German Chancellor is loudly shouting that he will visit Hitler's grave.
As mentioned above, the grave is in a different location. A shrine is a shrine. It is said that there are over 2,466,000 heroic spirits enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine, and each of their graves was probably erected by their local community or family members.
I wonder if the Japanese Prime Minister went to visit the Mausoleum of the Seven Martyrs of Japan in Aichi Prefecture.
A shrine only has a divine seat, which is said to be the place where the god appears and sits. A shrine is not a grave. It is essentially impossible to separate the divine throne. If there is a division, it is a branch shrine.
China and South Korea demand that the Yasukuni Shrine be separated for war criminals, but this is probably also the idea of graves. The remains of the heroes are not buried anywhere in Yasukuni Shrine. They mistakenly think it's some sort of mass grave.
In South Korea, the grave of a Korean War hero buried in South Korea's national cemetery was recently dug up because he had served in the former Japanese army. From Japan's perspective, it is a country with a culture that is extremely abnormal. In the first place, shrines are not graves, and that is also the extent of our understanding of graves.
In conclusion, if Yasukuni Shrine is enshrined in two parts, there will be two Yasukuni Shrines, and if it is enshrined in ten parts, there will only be ten Yasukuni Shrines. It might be a good idea to have Yasukuni Shrines all over Japan. It may be a talisman to keep people who flirt with you away from Japan.
Atomic bombs dropped two days before and the day after the signing of the Charter
The non-retroactivity of law is one of the basics of modern law, and new laws cannot adjudicate cases that occurred before the law was enacted. Moreover, two days before the signing of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and the next day on Nagasaki.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Constitutional Democratic Party member Konishi continued to complain at ABEMA TV that there was no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral.
Opposition party member developing original theory
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Clearly answered in parliamentary questions
Opposition parties' opinions should be as good as their approval ratings
The media mass-produces inequality of speech
Congressman Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party continued to complain on ABEMA Prime that there is no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral. He developed his own theory that the ceremonies performed by the state in the Cabinet Establishment Act referred to the ceremonies performed by the imperial family.
Looking at the Cabinet Establishment Act, Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 states, ``Matters related to national ceremonies and affairs related to ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet (excluding matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries).'' It is written. The Imperial Household Ceremonies set out in the Imperial House Law are interpreted to be included in this, and Article 7 of the Constitution states, ``The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state for the people.'' It becomes.
This is done with the advice and approval of the Cabinet under the Cabinet Establishment Act. In other words, nowhere does it say that the national ceremonies specified in the Cabinet Establishment Act refer only to ceremonies of the imperial family.
He asked a question in the Diet about the legal basis of the cabinet decision for state funerals, and Prime Minister Kishida clearly stated, ``Holding a state funeral, which is a national ceremony, based on a cabinet decision, means that the cabinet has decided to conduct a national ceremony.'' This is included in the function of administrative power, and Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 of the Cabinet Office Establishment Act clearly states that the Cabinet Office is responsible for affairs related to national ceremonies. I think it is possible, as it is clear in the law that the performance of national ceremonies that include national ceremonies is included in the functions of administrative power.''.
I wonder what the media means by equality of reporting. It is said that reporting the voices of opposition parties equally means not reporting only the opinions of a particular political party, but is reporting the opinions of opposition parties in the same manner really equal reporting equality? . According to opinion polls, even though the largest opposition party is the Nippon Ishin no Kai, it only has about 6% of the vote, while the Constitutional Democratic Party has about 5%. It is hard to believe that these opinions are represented by the number of seats that stand against the ruling party, and it is far from possible that they represent the voices of the people. In other words, reporting should be around 5% to 6% of the total, which would also be consistent with the meaning of equality.
On the contrary, Japan's current media outlets report on the claims of these opposition parties more than they do on the claims of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Recently, the opposition parties have become weak and are making a fuss by simply making counterarguments and making a fuss as if it were a flaming tactic, and the media, whose audience ratings continue to decline, are taking advantage of this to make numbers, which seems to be creating this inequality. appear. The media should mainly report the opinion that the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral based on the Cabinet Establishment Act is legal.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency, and it is not clear what the basis is - a basis that assumes various things is necessary.
Taiwan emergency is Japan emergency
Japan confirms security coverage of Senkaku Islands
Taiwan first claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
Sea defenses are extensive
The Taiwan Strait is a sea lane in East Asia
The Chinese government reacted sensitively to former Prime Minister Abe's online participation from Japan at a symposium held in Taiwan, where he said, ``Taiwan's emergency is Japan's emergency.'' Thinking about this matter, Japan and Taiwan do not have a military alliance to defend Taiwan, so it would be difficult to realize it in that sense. The U.S. law regarding Taiwan relations is extremely ambiguous regarding the participation of the U.S. military in the war.
Former Prime Minister Abe was particular about whether the Senkaku Islands were within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and received assurances from Mr. Trump, and later in a telephone conversation with President Biden, former Prime Minister Suga confirmed that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency that seems to have no basis in many legal and treaty terms, but if you think about it, the Senkaku Islands themselves seem to be the key to it.
In the first place, Taiwan was the first country to claim sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands. Three months later, China claimed the claim. Since China calls Taiwan its own territory, what belongs to Taiwan belongs to China. It seems like he made his point in a hurry.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it would logically be considered an invasion of the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan. In other words, the conditions for Japan-U.S. security and the activation of the right of collective self-defense are in place. I cannot believe that former Prime Minister Abe would pay baseless lip service.
Another theory is that defense in battle at sea will cover a wide area, and that Japan's remote islands near Taiwan will also be involved in the battle. In this case as well, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies, and if Japan enters the war, the U.S. military may also participate.
The Taiwan Strait is an important sea route for transporting oil and natural materials to Japan. If China were to take possession of this area, Japan would be in a situation where it would have a stranglehold on the sea route through which it supplies resources. Some are claiming that this is an emergency in Japan.
In any case, China has declared in advance that the Chinese military will not turn the waters off northeastern Taiwan, including the Senkaku Islands and other remote islands of Japan, into a combat zone, and that the Taiwan Strait will be maintained as before after the invasion of Taiwan. The question is, what will happen if this happens? Still, there needs to be a basis for invoking the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
The two - party system that is possible in Japan would be better if the Liberal Democratic Party was split into two - the opposition party would not become the ruling party.
Democratic government described as a nightmare
How much power should be given to the opposition party
What should a two-party system look like?
Republican policies and Democratic policies
Two-party system with the ability to govern
In the run-up to the House of Councilors election, when considering a two-party system that is possible in Japan, the media immediately talks about the need to develop an opposition party to compete with the Liberal Democratic Party, but based on painful experience under the previous Democratic Party administration, Japanese people are fed up with that story. Former Prime Minister Abe described the Democratic Party of Japan as a "nightmare government."
The Democratic Party of Japan, which gave up power after three years, subsequently fell apart and fell apart, but Japanese voters still had high expectations for the party, even for a certain period of time, when it came to the surprise of a party that split into pieces due to divisions among its ranks. He was appalled and regretted being appointed to the national government. So what is the current political party support rate? The opposition party only has an approval rating of around 5% at best. (Reference: Public opinion poll | Nippon Television)
I even wonder how much time we need to spend in the Diet against such an opposition party in the name of democracy. They were elected in their constituencies, but as a political party they can hardly be considered to represent the people.
Despite this, they do whatever they want under the pretext of monitoring the ruling party, and their activities only end up stalling the Diet by asking questions no different from those of weekly magazine reporters. .
Is it really possible to have a two-party system in Japan? There is an opinion that it is not true democracy if there is no change of government, and that is probably correct. However, the most serious problem is not that there is no other political party in Japan capable of managing the government other than the Liberal Democratic Party. So when will the opposition party grow? This year marks 77 years since the end of the war.
I've been saying for some time that it would be a good idea to split the Liberal Democratic Party into two, but most people give me strange looks. But guess what? The Liberal Democratic Party has a wide range of swings from left to right, which means it is a party with a wide range of defense. That is why it continued to be the ruling party for a long time after the war.
And in the last Liberal Democratic Party presidential election for Reps. Kishida, Takaichi, Kono, and Noda, a section of the public did not miss that this structure was clearly appearing and disappearing, but the media did not report on this structure.
Former Prime Minister Abe developed Abenomics in an effort to ease regulations, lower corporate taxes, improve the competitiveness of companies, raise gross output, increase employment, and induce inflation. Using the United States as an example, the policy will likely be more Republican.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he would energize the middle class, and has advocated for growth rather than distribution, which is a rather left-wing position, which in American terms could be called a Democratic Party-like position.
In other words, this would be fine. The Liberal Democratic Party could be divided into two major parties, the right and the left, and the people could decide which policy is needed now, taking into account the domestic situation at the time, and then change the government. This is a healthy two-party system. What is currently taking place as a competition between factions within the Liberal Democratic Party will be exposed to the vote of the people by separating it into a political party..
Even though the Liberal Democratic Party already covers a wide range of policies from both the right and the left, opposition parties that stray outside of that range are often talking about policies that are not realistic in the first place. We have experienced this under the Democratic Party administration. What became strange was that they tried to leave the matter to the opposition party under the pretext of a two-party system. The problem is that the opposition parties have a modest number of seats.
The government cannot be entrusted to any party other than those that have the ability to become the governing party. No matter what ideals or ideologies, if they are imperfect planes, they will crash.
It may no longer be true that opposition parties support a healthy democracy. What is needed is a political party with the ability to take charge of the government and be responsible.
Rui Matsukawa announces her candidacy for the House of Councilors election | Japan should increase the number of orthodox right - wing female members.
Supporting right-wing female legislators in the House of Councilors election
Women's political participation tends to the left
Japanese politics with few female politicians
Creating a constant will solve the problem
It's not a constant, it's a matter of awareness of participation
We need right-wing female MPs
It was decided that July 10th would be the day for voting in the House of Councilors, and Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Rui Matsukawa announced her candidacy on Twitter. This is the last day of the Diet session, and she said she will aim to pass a law establishing the Family Agency. She specializes in foreign affairs and is also knowledgeable about national defense, having served as Parliamentary Vice-Minister of Defense. I am not of the opinion that we should increase the number of female councilors, but rather that we should increase the number of orthodox right-wing female councilors like her and Councilor Takaichi.
Recently, when it comes to national defense in particular, there tends to be criticism that men are out of control when it comes to the military, but a female lawmaker's statement that Japan's national defense should be strengthened is a sign that women's public opinion is It also serves as a strong backing.
Good morning! It's finally the last day of the Diet session. We aim to enact the Children and Families Agency Establishment Act. The House of Councilors election is finally here. Thank you very much to everyone for the past 6 years. I would like to continue working with you. I will do my best. pic.twitter.com/Dm9xLsklWi? Rui Matsukawa =Liberal Democratic Party= (@Matsukawa_Rui) June 15, 2022
Up until now, female members of parliament have tended to be left-wing. To be honest, I'm tired of hearing things like ``opposing the amendment of Article 9'', ``getting along with neighboring countries'', and ``helping the weak'', and these statements will never make Japan stronger. In other words, there were many members with strong socialist and communist thinking. Regarding their historical views, they also said the same thing as China and the Korean Peninsula, calling for Japan to apologize to its neighboring countries.
She cried out that women's voices should be heard and spoke in the Diet as a representative of women, but her comments were left-wing, had strong socialist tendencies, and had a self-deprecating view of history. So, What has become of Japan today as a result of her listening to that voice?.
Some people say that there are few women members of the Japanese Diet, but what about the number of candidates? If there are fewer women candidates, it is natural that there will be fewer women elected. It has been pointed out that the percentage of women elected to the House of Representatives in 2021 is 9.7%. Not running for office in the first place means that you have no desire to become a member of the Diet, but calling for more women to become members of Congress is putting the cart before the horse.
Female members of the opposition parties often argue that the number of female members should be set at one-third, etc., but right-wing female members of the Liberal Democratic Party oppose this. Have opposition members ever wondered what would happen to the National Assembly if one-third of the members were incompetent? Of course, there are some excellent female politicians. This is also due to the fact that he himself ran for office and was elected.
In the first place, are there any gender differences in Japanese politics? I feel like this is based on the fact that in the past, women have not taken an interest in politics and have not participated in it.
This is because both men and women have equal rights to run for office and vote, and if we compare the population, there are more women than men. In other words, if all female voters vote for a female candidate, that female candidate will definitely win.
What is needed is a right-wing female lawmaker who can think about Japan's future, including national defense. Up until now, there was an illusion that Japan, protected by the US military, did not need to think about national defense, and on this premise, myths of friendship and equality with neighboring countries had flourished. Left-wing female parliamentarians were born from this soil. What they have done is no more than simply slandering the government and the ruling party.
The environment surrounding Japan is not always beautiful. We need to increase the number of right-wing female members of Congress who face these issues head-on and seriously consider how to deal with them.
