When asked "What do you want to do now?" at a press conference, Hayata Hina, a medalist in table tennis at the Paris Olympics, answered, "I want to go to the Kagoshima Kamikaze Museum. Because I want to feel that being alive and being able to play table tennis is not something to be taken for granted." This has caused a bit of a stir. Most opinions are praising her, but it seems that a commentator named Furuichi said something unnecessary and caused a stir.
China's overly sensitive reaction
In China, it is said that national team players unfollowed Hayata on Weibo, and it is questionable how they knew about it so quickly, but since Chinese players are truly national representatives, it is best to assume that they will be used for political purposes. This topic seems to have developed beyond what Hayata said into a discussion of whether past wars are glorified. It is better to know that the term "glorifying war" is a term used by the continent and the peninsula.
The continental peninsula doesn't care about Japan's reasons
For the continental peninsula, it doesn't matter what that war was like for Japan or what its purpose was. Many Japanese people have simply been imprinted with the idea that it was all Japan's fault and have internalized that belief. Therefore, when something like Hayata's remarks come out, they instinctively jump to the conclusion that it should be glorified or not. In other words, there is no in-between. Before even evaluating past wars, it seems that many Japanese people only receive biased information about how past wars occurred, and this will not lead to a good outcome.
Tokyo Hideki's will
This may seem sudden, but have you ever seen Hideki Tojo's suicide note? He was a man who led the war at the time and was sentenced to death at the Tokyo Trials after the war.
Here is an excerpt from Hideki Tojo's suicide note.
The peoples of East Asia should forget this and continue to cooperate in the future. The peoples of East Asia should have the same rights as other peoples, and should be proud to be people of color. I cannot help but feel respect for the Indian judge. I felt this was a source of pride for the peoples of East Asia.
The leaders of the United States made a big mistake. They destroyed the barrier against redemption that was Japan. Manchuria is now the base for redemption. The division of Korea in two is the root of trouble for East Asia. The United States and Britain have the responsibility to remedy this.
What do you think? There are various elements in this sentence.
First, Tojo felt a strong sense of responsibility for Japan.
Second, he points out that the idea that the peoples of Asia should cooperate together and have the same rights as other peoples is currently in a discriminatory position. Next, regarding postwar movements, he describes Japan as a barrier against redemption, but this means that Japan was a barrier against the Soviet Union and prevented communism in Asia, and that the subsequent division of the peninsula and the communistization of China will be the root of trouble in the future. It may be easy to say that Tojo was responsible for the war, but the war that can be seen from this will is never discussed. Rather, it can be said that such historical documents are completely sealed.
Did Japan invade Southeast Asia?
In postwar education, we are taught that Japan invaded various Asian countries, but at that time, the only independent country in Asia was the Kingdom of Thailand. China maintained its sovereignty, but each region was created as a concession from the West, and it was essentially divided.
Japan and the Kingdom of Thailand formed an alliance. The rest of Southeast Asia was French, British, and Dutch, and Japan invaded those regions, but that is not what we are taught. Japan truly positioned that war as a war for the liberation of Asia. This can be fully seen in Tojo's will, and what Japan has been working on since the Meiji era is to support the modernization of Asia. We are taught that Japan fought a reckless war. But what about? Japan won the Sino-Japanese War, won against Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, and won against all the British, French, and Dutch armies in Southeast Asia. However, we are not taught that we were defeated by the United States. We are simply taught that we recklessly entered into a war that we could not win.
Jayawardene's speech
I would like to take up the speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference. It was a speech by J.R. Jayawardene, who later became the president of Sri Lanka.
Speech by J.R. Jayawardene "Why do the peoples of Asia yearn for the freedom of Japan? It is because of our long-standing relationship with Japan, and also because of the deep respect we had for Japan as a protector and friend when Japan was the only strong and free nation among the peoples of Asia. I recall an incident during the last war when the leaders of Burma, India, and Indonesia adopted the slogan of coexistence and co-prosperity for Asia, and joined the ranks of Japan with the hope that their beloved countries would be liberated."
What does this mean? Sri Lanka, which was then India, spoke of the slogan of coexistence and co-prosperity for Asia, referring to the Daitoa Joint Declaration that was put forward at the Daitoa Conference, and said in his speech that he hoped his country would be liberated. Jayawardene then appealed to the participating countries to renounce their right to claim reparations from Japan and to accept Japan as a member of the international community. In this way, it may be natural that countries at that time would not be willing to understand the reasons for Japan's war, but it can be said that there are various ways of thinking about that war, even among those who are not enemies or allies.
Should war be judged as good or bad?
So, from what I have said so far, does the question arise as to whether that war was right or wrong? Perhaps that is the perspective of the continent, the peninsula, or the West. For them, Japan is the enemy, so it is fine to say that it was wrong, and they have no interest or benefit from any further detailed reasons. On that basis, if you are asked whether war is right or wrong in general, you can say that it was wrong. It is necessary to break down each war that has happened in the past into smaller parts. To put it in extreme terms, that operation was successful, that operation was the worst.
Various wars are recorded in world history, but we have never seen any that are evaluated simply on the basis of good or bad. The reasons for victory and defeat are discussed for each battle and outcome, but in Japan, such a perspective is not even seen for our own country's war. A simple way to look at it is to divide it into several phases, such as the world situation surrounding Japan before the war, the outbreak of the war, the early, middle, and late stages of the war, and how the war ended.
In the case of Japan's war, as I mentioned, the premise is that it challenged a war of liberation for Asia at a time when the entire world had become a Western colony, and what Japan did wrong was the later stage of the war, that is, how it ended. After the defeat at the Battle of Midway, when Japan lost control of the sea and air, it is difficult to find a story in which Japan wins because the United States can attack Japan freely, but Japan cannot fire a single bullet at the US mainland. In this environment, air raids and atomic bombings are carried out in various places. It can be said that the formation of the Kamikaze Special Attack Units was a mistaken strategy born out of this war situation.
It seems that Japan has not yet been able to break free from the binary debate of whether to glorify or not glorify the reasons that led Japan to war, the feelings of those who fought, and the people who carried out the operations, and whether they were right or wrong.
