In my previous post, I gave what I take to be some common Japanese views of their own Self Defense Forces. In this post I want to give some much less frequent, darker experiences I had that bear on the topic.
I mentioned that most Japanese seem to connect the terms army and navy with the 1930s & '40s militarism and are offended if you describe the current JSDF with those terms. I try (usually successfully) not to judge other people's linguistic associations, but it seemed a bit silly all these decades after the end of the war. However, on a couple of occasions I ran into Japanese ultranationalists who gave me pause.
In one case, I was touring a very small military museum that I ran across. It had a number of small displays about the Japanese Imperial Navy of the 1940s with photographs of young men in naval uniforms. I talked to the gentleman at the front desk about some of the exhibits and in answering he explained, as best as I can remember, that they highlighted the courage and sacrifice of the officers and sailors in particular engagements. He went on to tell me that, as an American, I should know that Japan's leadership did not order any atrocities during WWII, although there were small rogue units that unfortunately did commit war crimes. Also, he claimed, many of the stories about Japanese atrocities in China were just Chinese communist propaganda. He said he didn't hate Americans and was glad our nations were friends now, but we should learn the real history of the war. Although I think he's completely wrong, I was very interested in hearing his version of things and just asked questions and tried to look thoughtful. He did not strike me as the kind of man I could discuss this with openly, so I didn't try, although looking back maybe I should have. It's hard to say all these years later.
While I was in Japan, the government approved a number of new history textbooks that either didn't cover or downplayed Japanese war crimes during WWII. Schools (or prefectures? I'm not sure) can choose from a list of approved textbooks, so it just gave them these options, in addition to other textbooks that did cover the war crimes.
It is hard to know what to think of that. Japan's war crimes in WWII are in a way similar to the slavery issue here. One of the functions of national history is to have a shared story that forms a sense of being one people. How should we treat such evils as slavery and national war crimes while still maintaining a sense of national worth and national honor? How to remember the war is something that has remained very contentious there. Those who want a reduced emphasis on Japan's war crimes claim that too much time is spent on it and that such self-flagellation (as they see it) is unhealthy for a people.
On the other hand, many Japanese fear that, if schools don't teach about the evils of Japan's 1930s and '40s militarism, more and more Japanese will come to believe that Japan did nothing wrong in WWII. They fear that this would lead to a new rise of ultranationalism and a new militarism.
To be fair to them, there is a strain of Japanese history that points out that the US Navy forced Japan to open in 1853 and that European colonization of China and other parts of Asia forced Japan to industrialize and arm itself. So far, that's true. Where the narrative line gets pretty questionable is the further claim that European and American threats and aggression forced Japan to invade its neighbors and continually expand its empire in order to be strong enough to defend itself. It then becomes natural in this line of thought that Pearl Harbor was America's fault; our oil embargo prevented Japan from defending itself. Those that peddle this line bitterly resent the United States.
So, the supporting narrative is there for a new anti-American ultranationalism wherein Japan was the victim of WWII. There are also a number of ultranationalist groups in Japan that want to get rid of the constitution altogether and return to the Meiji constitution that gave significant political power to the Army and Navy. They oppose democracy and capitalism and the civil rights the Japanese enjoy under their current constitution. I have no real idea how big these groups are. They drive around in these big black buses painted with nationalist emblems, blaring out nationalist songs from what I think are the 1930s. They occasionally go out and parade around in Imperial Army uniforms, or outfits that look similar, and wave the old flags around. They always struck me as being a bit like the KKK here in that they wanted to demonstrate they're still around but they didn't have many adherents or much power. They seemed quite marginalized to me. Thankfully, they don't seem to be stabbing foreigners or pro-democracy political leaders or pro-capitalism business leaders to death on a regular basis as their predecessors in the 1920s did.
In this environment, for many Japanese, talk of amending the constitution, particularly Article 9, brings fears of a new rise of ultranationalism and militarism with a great loss of democracy and civil rights. Obviously, the ultranationalists are all in favor of ditching Article 9 and rearming, so anyone talking about ditching Article 9 and rearming seems a bit suspect.
My opinion is the ultranationalists have few people and little power, so the chance of a resurgence of ultranationalist militarism is quite remote, but I can't say it's non-existent. And in any case, what I think doesn't matter. It's what the Japanese think that matters.
