MovieChat Forums > Biruma no tategoto (1957) Discussion > Japan’s Textbooks Reflect Revised Histor...

Japan’s Textbooks Reflect Revised History


The New York Times
April 1, 2007
Japan’s Textbooks Reflect Revised History
By NORIMITSU ONISHI

TOKYO, March 31 — In another sign that Japan is pressing ahead in revising its history of World War II, new high school textbooks will no longer acknowledge that the Imperial Army was responsible for a major atrocity in Okinawa, the government announced late Friday.

The Ministry of Education ordered publishers to delete passages stating that the Imperial Army ordered civilians to commit mass suicide during the Battle of Okinawa, as the island was about to fall to American troops in the final months of the war.

The decision was announced as part of the ministry’s annual screening of textbooks used in all public schools. The ministry also ordered changes to other delicate issues to dovetail with government assertions, though the screening is supposed to be free of political interference.

“I believe the screening system has been followed appropriately,” said Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has long campaigned to soften the treatment in textbooks of Japan’s wartime conduct.

The decision on the Battle of Okinawa, which came as a surprise because the ministry had never objected to the description in the past, followed recent denials by Mr. Abe that the military had coerced women into sexual slavery during the war.

The results of the annual textbook screening are closely watched in China, South Korea and other Asian countries. So the fresh denial of the military’s responsibility in the Battle of Okinawa and in sexual slavery — long accepted as historical facts — is likely to deepen suspicions in Asia that Tokyo is trying to whitewash its militarist past even as it tries to raise the profile of its current forces.

Shortly after assuming office last fall, Mr. Abe transformed the Defense Agency into a full ministry. He has said that his most important goal is to revise the American-imposed, pacifist Constitution that forbids Japan from having a full-fledged military with offensive abilities.

Some 200,000 Americans and Japanese died during the Battle of Okinawa, one of the most brutal clashes of the war. It was the only battle on Japanese soil involving civilians, but Okinawa was not just any part of Japan.

It was only in the late 19th century that Japan officially annexed Okinawa, a kingdom that, to this day, has retained some of its own culture. During World War II, when many Okinawans still spoke a different dialect, Japanese troops treated the locals brutally. In its history of the war, the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum presents Okinawa as being caught in the fighting between America and Japan — a starkly different view from the Yasukuni Shrine war museum, which presents Japan as a liberator of Asia from Western powers.

During the 1945 battle, during which one quarter of the civilian population was killed, the Japanese Army showed indifference to Okinawa’s defense and safety. Japanese soldiers used civilians as shields against the Americans, and persuaded locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. With the impending victory of American troops, civilians committed mass suicide, urged on by fanatical Japanese soldiers.

“There were some people who were forced to commit suicide by the Japanese Army,” one old textbook explained. But in the revision ordered by the ministry, it now reads, “There were some people who were driven to mass suicide.”

Other changes are similar — the change to a passive verb, the disappearance of a subject — and combine to erase the responsibility of the Japanese military. In explaining its policy change, the ministry said that it “is not clear that the Japanese Army coerced or ordered the mass suicides.”

As with Mr. Abe’s denial regarding sexual slavery, the ministry’s new position appeared to discount overwhelming evidence of coercion, particularly the testimony of victims and survivors themselves.

“There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide,” Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, said in an angry editorial. “There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers” to blow themselves up.

The editorial described the change as a politically influenced decision that “went along with the government view.”

Mr. Abe, after helping to found the Group of Young Parliamentarians Concerned About Japan’s Future and History Education in 1997, long led a campaign to reject what nationalists call a masochistic view of history that has robbed postwar Japanese of their pride.

Yasuhiro Nakasone, a former prime minister who is a staunch ally of Mr. Abe, recently denied what he wrote in 1978. In a memoir about his Imperial Navy experiences in Indonesia, titled “Commander of 3,000 Men at Age 23,” he wrote that some of his men “started attacking local women or became addicted to gambling.

“For them, I went to great pains, and had a comfort station built,” Mr. Nakasone wrote, using the euphemism for a military brothel.

But in a meeting with foreign journalists a week ago, Mr. Nakasone, now 88, issued a flat denial. He said he had actually set up a “recreation center,” where his men played Japanese board games like go and shogi.

In a meeting on Saturday with Foreign Minister Taro Aso of Japan, South Korea’s foreign minister, Song Min-soon, criticized Mr. Abe’s recent comments on sexual slaves.

“The problems over perceptions of history are making it difficult to move South Korean-Japanese relations forward,” Mr. Song said.

Mr. Aso said Japan stuck by a 1993 statement acknowledging responsibility for past sexual slavery, but said nothing about Mr. Abe’s denial that the military had coerced women, many of them Korean, into sexual slavery.

reply

And this has what to do about this touching film?

reply

it has a lot to do with it. the way the japanese soldiers are portrayed in the burmese harp is very incongruous with historical evidence. the brutality of the japanese army towards all the countries they conquered is well noted by historians and survivors of their rampage. the first article describing incidents in okinawa is just a very small dose of what the japanses occupying forces did throughout east asia, basically raping, rampaging and pillaging (this is not an understatement, they literally did this by the way. they considered nonjapanese asians as subhumans).a kind of good hearted band of stalwart japanese singing soldiers respectfully moving around in an occupied country does seem a tad revisionist.

reply

Yes and the us army did many atrocious things to. That doesnt mean every single soldier was a devil.

reply

Exactly.
Japan lost, victors write the history books. Chairman Mao and his party made plenty of films, so did the Kims in North Korea. Go watch them for your accurate "history"

reply

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that a more overt criticism of the Japanese army at the time would have backlashed on the director and the film itself. In fact, its possible that the film would have altogether been censored. The way it was done, one can still read between the lines and find a strong anti-war message. I think that's a bold move for any filmmaker in any part of the world (many filmmakers today wouldn't dare to criticize their country's past/current war initiatives). It's true that the film could have more specifically condemned the Japanese war atrocities, but perhaps it wasn't the right time to do so then.

I wonder, are there any other Japanese movies which address those issues more directly? I'm a big fan of Japanese film, but I've never watched anything of that sort.

(I happen to be reading at the moment Haruki Murakami's book, "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle", in which he writes, among other things, about the Japanese invasion of China.)

reply

i think it's a well made movie and quite touching. but the western version would be the equivalent of a film about a group of good hearted singing nazi's whose member goes and tries to save his nazi brethren and then on his way back becomes a monk due to all the nazi dead he's seen (not one dead jew or american soldier, just as in "the burmese harp" the japanese soldier is horrified by dead japanese soldiers, not one dead burmese or allied soldier is shown. this in itself is a little nutty). such a movie would be decried and villified in the west. the person who posted that first article is most likely asian so his/her perspective will be very different from a white western person. the fact of the matter is what the germans did to europe, the japanese did to east asia and that's how the japanese are percieved there by the countries they invaded. the rape of nanking and such incidences are like the aushwitz of china.
by the way, to the guy bringing up mao and what not, i'm american who just happened to study some of this in college as well as lived and travelled in east asia for over four years and made lots of friends over there, so i bit more familiar with this. any asian person (excluding japanese, of course) seeing this might perhaps see the quality of the film making but would most likely be offended by how the japanese are portrayed.
think about it this way, if your grandfather was murdered and your grandmother had been raped and made a sex slave by japanese soldiers, you might have a different opinion about the movie.

reply

After reading your comment, syp218, I have to agree with you. It's true that it's very dangerous to omit the kind of information that is missing in this film. As someone whose grandfather was put in a concentration camp in Europe during the war, I know that it's very important to forgive, but also to remember.

I've never been to Japan, but I hear that (unlike in Germany) the atrocities that were committed in war by their army aren't always looked at straight in the face, even today. I know that the government has indeed apologized and that part of the population accepts that many monstrosities were carried out in the past; but apparently, there's still a strong resistance to this topic by a big part of the population. That, however, is just my understanding as an outsider who's never been there, and I'm fully aware that I could be wrong: whatever view I have on the matter is based on other people's comments or articles that I've read. A film like "The Burmese Harp" would support that view, although perhaps some newer films are more critical of their past. I'm very curious to know if that's the case, and if my understanding of the situation is completely off.

What I meant by my previous comment is that it's possible that the filmmaker couldn't have gotten away at the time with criticizing more directly the brutalities committed by the Japanese army. So, at the time (only 10 years after the war ended), taking on war and those who support it might have been a big step for anyone in his shoes.

To jamesjones's comment ('Japan lost, victors write the history books. Chairman Mao and his party made plenty of films, so did the Kims in North Korea. Go watch them for your accurate "history"') I'd have to say that a) it's true that even today, many countries don't accept any open criticism of the brutalities committed by their armies/governments, and b) that still doesn't mean that it's ok in any way.

reply

The film is a comment on the absolute futility, horror, and waste of human lives that war is. By taking out the causes and preface of this war the director was able, I think, to focus more sharply on the aftermath of war. We really are not looking here at who were the good guys or who were the bad guys, simply that in the end war kills them all....and creates scars in the minds and body of those who survive.
IMHO.....

I'm all for it, that is, unless I'm agin' it

reply

While this very well is true and I applaud the desire to keep correct awareness, I too believe we're missing the point of the film if we're focusing on something other than Mizushima's reflections, which message I believe was the same then is it is now: the effects and aftermath of the war, illustrated in the letter at the end of the movie. To me, whether this story was about Burmese, American, or Japanese soldiers, the message is the same:

"As I climbed mountains and crossed rivers, burying the bodies left in the grasses and streams, my heart was racked with questions: Why must the world suffer such misery? Why must there be such inexplicable pain? As the days passed, I came to understand. I realized that, in the end, the answers were not for human beings to know, that our work is simply to ease the great suffering of the world. To have the courage to face suffering, senselessness and irrationality without fear, to find the strength to create peace by one's own example. I will undergo whatever training is necessary for this to become my unshakable conviction."

reply

I haven't seen much dealing with subject matter either but it's worth watching -
- The Human Condition I (the whole trilogy is good but the first one at least hints at the things you mention - though it also covers over it too - but a lot of reading between the lines is needed).
- The Naked Emperor's Army Marches On (documentary)
- Japanese Devils (documentary)

reply

The Japanese director Nagisa Oshima is the only I know that has some direct criticism on Japanese society. Some of his films (for example "In the Realm of the Senses" are still banned in Japan. His films don't exactly issue the war atrocities, but are still interesting to watch for their controversial viewpoints on japanese society and traditions.

Also there's a giganic epic called "The Human Condition" by Masaki Kobayashi, which features some strong messages about how the Japanese treated their POW's, the situation in the camps and the uselessness of the war. This one is recommended viewing IMO!

"The willow sees the heron's image upside down" from 'Sans Soleil'

reply

Knowing of the many atrocities by the Japanese Army in Burma on POWs and civilians made the opening of the movie a bit hard to swallow. But as others here have said; "Not all soldiers are devils". I found most of the film moving and touching. But on the Critereon DVD on the extras, the actor who played the Captain of the group tells of his truelife experience as a soldier in WWII and he said in training they practiced bayonet drills on LIVING PRISONERS. He said he didn't kill his practice prisoner, that he couldn't bring himself to do it.
War is a complete breakdown of society that maintains one society to destroy another. Normal men do unspeakable things to each other, things they would never imagine (most men) doing unless all the rules were taken away and thier friends were killed beside them. Fear and Hate are powerful motivators and governments often exploit them in numerous ways. WMDs anyone?
The Japanese government and military organized a lot of Fear and Hate into truely hideous practices that were more outrageous than the Nazis.
The Japanese can rewrite history anyway they wish. I think the Chinese and Burmese and Americans and Koreans and more than a few others will stand up and remind them what they did.
It's still a good movie with a good message.

reply

I saw this film over 40 years ago and have never forgotten it. (I would love to see it again, but have never come across a showing.) I am leftish, but very far from a bleeding heart, and even less so at that time. At that time I also had Burmese friends who were infuriated by it, because it was a Japanese film made in Burma, with no acknowledgement of the atrocities the Burmese suffered. I think, however, that the film should be seen as a universal film about humanity, war and its consequences, and not as a film about Japanese soldiers.

reply

I find it a bit odd that some salient images and points in this movie are being ignored in this discussion. Some examples:



POSSIBLE SPOILERS:












The Japanese soldiers in the mountain are shown as the typical fanatical Bushido warriors who think dying in battle is glorious and surrender is cowardice. They actually try to kill Mizushima when he tries to get them to surrender.

It is the British* who are always presented as decent and compassionate. They WANT Mizushima to get the Japanese on the mountain to surrender first, even though the movie makes it clear they can wipe out the Japanese at will, and that the Japanese would try to kill any British soldier who tried to approach and offer terms of surrender. When the company sings "There's No Place Like Home", the British (and Indian) troops respond willingly, and their faces in the moonlight are presented as angelically as those of the Japanese. It is clear that the Japanese in the POW camp are well-treated. The Indian guard even insists the Japanese prisoners take shelter during the rainstorm. And then there is the scene at the cemetary where the nuns and priest honor the dead Japanese soldier. There is not a single negative portrayal of an Allied soldier in this movie, but insanely fanatical nature of the Japanese soldiers in the mountain is made clear.

At least three times in the movie the point is made that the British had many war dead as well as the Japanese. 1) The Burmese priest who points it out to Mizushima. 2) The ceremony at the temple. 3) The British War Dead Repository scene, which is crucial, because Mizushima brings the jewel that represents the spirit of the dead to honor the BRITISH war dead.

I guess some people think the main Japanese company in this movie is supposed to represent typical Japanese soldiers. I don't see it that way at all, since so many things these soldiers do is UNUSUAL. But in the scene where the Japanese are cornered in the village, the compassionate Captain STILL grabs his sword and nearly orders a fanatical charge on the British soldiers surrounding them. It is Mizushima playing the harp that stops him. And the soldiers still feel shame at surrendering, and have what to them is a natural expectation that the British will simply execute them once they have surrendered.

Just thought I'd point out these things.

*One more thing: I hope the British on these boards who feel their part in World War II was slighted will appreciate the fact that only the British are mentioned in this film as the opponents of the Japanese. Not one single mention of the Americans is made in this movie.

reply

DD-931,

It is indeed wrong to assume Americans single-handedly won that war. There is likely no way the US could have prevailed without the UK and the USSR.

However, it's also wrong to think of the British contribution as equal to that of either of its allies. The Soviets poured many, many more men into the European theater than the British ever could have. And the United States put ships in BOTH seas and planes over BOTH theaters; the British did, too, but on a comparatively small scale (miniscule, even, in the Pacific). Overall, Russia and America carried the war from 1943 onward.

The fact that the Japanese deal with exclusively Brits in this film is absolutely the exception and not the norm.

reply

I'm not sure the British contribution was minimal: the bulk of the fighting in Burma was British and Commonwealth forces (14th Army) so it made sense for the 'enemy' in this movie to be represented by British and Indian troops. The US contributions, with the exception of smaller groups such as Merrill's Marauders, were vast but in the form of engineering, supplies, logistics and the 10th Air Force (including the superb 1st Air Commando about whom I have *never* heard or read a bad word from anyone - the feeling was mutual towards the 14th Army and the Chindits) rather than infantry.

I guess the loss at Kohima, Imphal, Meitkila, Mandalay and throughout most of Burma affected the way the Japanese viewed their army so much which might explain why the novel (and thus the movie) is set in Burma. It's very arguable that Imphal / Kohima were the largest defeats suffered by the Japanese army in the field. However, the story could have been set on one of the Pacific islands in which case the 'enemy' would be US troops (or maybe Australian if set in Guinea).

The bulk of fighting in the Atlantic was by the Royal Navy all the way from 1939 until 1945. It was they who broke the back of the Kreigsmarine (in particular the u-boats) and led the way to victory there. The RN were far less evident in the Pacific, but even I was surprised to read that 25% of the allied naval air power at Okinawa came from the British Pacific Fleet (land forces being US by a vast margin of course). Plus of course at D-Day, Britain took 2 beaches like the US did (the 5th being Canadian) and took on the bulk of the Axis forces leaving the US to break out. And of course Britain had been fighting in other fronts - the Med, North Africa, Italy (a truly multi-national effort), Greece, Cyprus, Norway - quite a few fronts that are often not known about.

It was actually quite touching to see one's own country represented in a sympathetic light but then Japanese soldiers had been told to expect torture and execution if they surrendered. When they did, they often complied with interrogation quite willingly because their superiors had not expected them to ever surrender and gave them no instructions as to what to do. I often think of Aida's autobiographical book, "Prisoner of the British' in which he complains about having to being told to pick up pieces of paper from the floor by a lower class type of woman when a POW. It doesn't compare well with what most allied POWs experienced at the hands of the Japanese.

And the mystifying thing is comparing the treatment of civilians and POWs by Japanese during the second world war with earlier wars when the Japanese were regarded as being exceptionally humane to foreign prisoners.

reply

However, it's also wrong to think of the British contribution as equal to that of either of its allies. The Soviets poured many, many more men into the European theater than the British ever could have.
And have YOU considered the populations of Russia versus Britain at that point in history? No one underestimates the input of the Russians and how their battle with the Germans wrecked havoc on the latter. Those who acknowledge their debt to Russia and others do so without trying to underestimate or belittle the contributions of all the other countries who joined and fought long before America decided to join the fight.
I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

reply

3) The British War Dead Repository scene, which is crucial, because Mizushima brings the jewel that represents the spirit of the dead to honor the BRITISH war dead.
It is following this scene that Mizushima returns to the shore line and begins burying the Japanese dead. The British ceremony gave him an idea as to how to respond to seeing the wasted bodies of his fallen comrades.
I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

reply

How many American films acknowledge the evil of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

E.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Historical revision, or rewriting the history is never a good thing, but we should keep in mind that for the Americans, who not only rewrote their own World War II history, conveniently also neglected to mention the fact that not one American has ever been convicted for any of the thousands of war crimes they committed during and after World War II. Some of these crimes were so inhuman, that it is almost unimaginable. Just keep that in mind.

reply

The japanese textbook controversy has been repeatedly blown way out of proportion especially by former war enemies like china who build their entire national myth on defeating the japanese devil (ironically many many more chinese have been killed by civil wars, political uprisings and Mao's great leap forward than by japanese. As horrific as that sounds 20 million chinese dead in a conflict wasn't anything out of the ordinary in the 20th century, let alone all the other ones before it).

There's no denying the atrocities committed by the japanese in world war II but if you actually do some research on your own and not just buy into regurgitated internet myths you will find only a miniscule percentage of japanese history books sugarcoat or erase war atrocities. People like to dig these up though from time to time.
Apart from that every empire or former empire sugarcoats their history to a stunning degree. Japan didn't do much different from western nations at the time. Sure, they were more brutal, but the only reason they have to bear the responsibility for their actions is because they lost the war. When they defeated russia and imperial china earlier in the century to expand their influence in that region noone gave a damn because that was just what countries did back then, wage war.

reply