カテゴリー: 論説

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2256

Kawahara Shoichiro
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)

1.The Trump administration and China-Twaiwan relationship

In the United States, Mr. Trump took the presidential office, and the second Trump administration started. Viewing the members of the Trump administration in terms of the China-Taiwan relationship, Trump picked Mr. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Rep. Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, as well as other senior officials, who are hard-liners on China. In Taiwan, most people expected Mr. Mike Pompeo to be reappointed Secretary of State, but it can be said that the Trump-picked lineup leaves nothing to be desired.

The China-Taiwan policy of the second Trump administration will basically follow the first -term hard line that confronted China with additional tariffs. Mr. Trump invited former Prime Minister Abe’s widow to his home and talked with her, prior to meeting with Prime Minister Ishiba, which has profound significance. One thing can be said that Mr. Trump will respect Mr. Abe’s policy-line on the diplomatic issues including how to deal with China from now on. Abe’s extremely pro-Taiwan policy was detested by the Chinese Communist Party and there was violent protest against it, which is fresh to our memory.

The great characteristic of Mr. Trump’s diplomatic policy is that he often shows little trust toward international organizations and acts unilaterally as a leader of the United States to solve the problem. Certainly, his way of dealing carries significant destructive power and is often very effective. In his first-term administration, he did not participate in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement) promoted by Mr. Obama, his predecessor, and instead, applied the method of unilaterally sanctioning China according to the US Trade Law. China could do nothing whatsoever to cope with  these measures. Considering these circumstances, some predict that Trump may withdraw from the IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework) promoted by the Biden administration, of which the United States is a Party.

On the other hand, the China-Taiwan relationships have become increasingly tense. The Chinese Communist Party regards Mr. Lai Ching-te as Taiwan’s independence advocate and has been strengthening the military drill for the siege of Taiwan. In October 2024, in his presidential address marking the Double Tenth holiday (Taiwan’s National Day), President Lai referred to Taiwan as an independent state, which China regarded as totally unacceptable and conducted the largest ever military drill for the siege of Taiwan. CIA Director Burns said in February 2023 that President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese Army to complete the preparation for invasion of Taiwan by 2027. If this is true, around 2027, China will most likely invade Taiwan.

2.The Chinese Communist Party’s scenario for the unification with Taiwan

The current key factor of the China-Taiwan relationships is the unification with Taiwan planned by the Chinese Communist Party, which has two scenarios, peaceful and military ones. These two scenarios are not to be carried out alone, but reciprocally and accordingly to the respective situation at the time.

The peaceful scenario is basically stated in the “Five-Article Common Recognition (Five Great Hopes)” agreed upon during the top meeting between Lien Chan, Chairman of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) and Hu Jin Tao, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2005. According to the “Five Great Hopes,” Taiwan is to be economically incorporated and become highly dependent on China and then conclude the peace agreement to complete the unification of Taiwan with China, which is exactly the Chinese Communist Party’s scenario to unify Taiwan. Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, who restored the Kuomintang government in 2008, faithfully carried out the Five Great Hopes. And in 2011, adding the finishing touch to the Five Great Hopes, Mr. Ma proposed the peace agreement across the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwanese most strongly opposed the proposition, and Mr. Ma was obliged to withdraw his proposal immediately.

Later, in 2016, Ms. Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party became the president, and the peace agreement across the Taiwan Strait was strictly sealed by the revised law that prohibits the peace agreement from being discussed as an agenda. In the following 2024, Mr. Lai Ching-te of the Democratic Progressive Party won the presidential election and succeeded the political position held by the Tsai Ing-wen administration.

Under such circumstances, the military unification scenario came to attract the people’s attention. The Chinese Communist Party, in view of the planned military attack on Taiwan, has been rapidly increasing military strength. Communist China’s military drills expand in scale, every time one takes place, it covers Taiwan wider and wider, threatens the Taiwanese people and incites fear.

3.Mr. Trump and the strategical ambiguity  

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (digital edition) in October 2024, being asked how he would respond if China should blockade Taiwan, Mr. Trump said that if China should enter Taiwan, he would impose 150% to 200% tariffs on China. Instead of immediately resorting to military force, he would counter by additional tariffs, which would totally destroy the Chinese economy. This would be an effective deterrent. When asked directly if he would employ military force to cope with the siege of Taiwan, he said that there would be no need to use military force, because Mr. Xi respects him and knows that he is extraordinary. This probably means that if the United States should use armed force, that would be far more powerful than an ordinary deployment. Mr. Trump contrasts with Mr. Biden, who immediately answered that he would when asked if he would use military force in carrying out use of force. Mr. Trump thinks it better to leave certain strategical ambiguity at the time of Taiwan emergency.

4.The recognition of Taiwan’s statehood and national security

Like in the first one, in the second Trump administration, the policy of prioritizing Taiwan will be maintained, and arms sales and other measures will be actively conducted. There is one important issue the second Trump administration may possibly face. That is the issue of the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood as former Secretary State Pompeo advocates.

On May 7, 2022, while visiting Taiwan, Mr. Pompeo said that the United States should immediately carry out what it should have carried out much sooner. That is to recognize Taiwan as a free sovereign state. He also said that the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood is the largest security for Taiwan.

Mr. Pompeo has been energetically acting to achieve that goal, lobbying the United States authorities for the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood. During a meeting at the Hudson Institute, Mr. Pompeo said he encourages US officials to visit Taiwan more often, even though doing so would incite threats from the CCP. “I hope more other senior American officials will join me in this, because I think it will create noise,” he said. “There will be angst, the Chinese Communist Party will bluster and threaten, but that clarity will provide the call for the world to accept the fundamental truth, that fundamental reality.”

That “reality” is that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, he said.

The Chinese Communist Party does not accept Taiwan’s statehood. According to the CCP, the use of armed force against Taiwan is a domestic issue within the state called China. In other words, any use of armed force against Taiwan is a pure domestic matter and other countries should not interfere in a country’s domestic policy.

Looking at the reality of the Taiwan Strait, anyone cannot help but feel that the Chinese Communist Party’s assertion that Taiwan is part of China is a sheer sophistry. According to international law and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the criteria for statehood are (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Taiwan satisfies all these qualifications without any problem. Anyone knows Taiwan’s steady and continuous activities over the last thirty years as an independent democracy. It is undeniable that two states exist across the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Pary’s use of force against Taiwan clearly violates the United Nations Charter Article 2-4: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

However, at present, Taiwan is not permitted to join the United Nations and is disqualified as a member of any United Nations organizations. The rights of the population of 23 million Taiwanese are damaged in many ways.

In reality, any state that intends to recognize Taiwan as a state should be fully prepared for severance of its diplomatic relationship with China as the Chinese Communist Party’s retaliatory measure. Therefore, no state is willing to recognize Taiwan’s statehood for fear of such diplomatic risk. The only state that can risk such a diplomatic disadvantage is the United States. However, the current difficult global circumstances would not allow the United States to take such a risk. It would be either when the China-Taiwan relationships are stressed to the extreme or the use of force becomes reality that the United States will step forward to recognize Taiwan’s statehood. In that case, the United States would be requested to recognize Taiwan’s statehood in view of securing the rightfulness of the use of force under the international law and obtaining due agreement from other countries of the world.

Aside from the prospect of whether the critical situation between China and Taiwan occurs during the second-term Trump administration, the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood is a crucial issue directly affecting the entire world. The United States will further deliberate the Taiwan issue from now on. It is not at all desirable to leave China’s sophistry as it is, which clearly contradicts the reality of the Taiwan Strait and violates the Taiwanese rights. While expecting Mr. Pompeo and his supporters to make further efforts, in Japan, we should promote the awareness of this issue so that the recognition of Taiwan’s statehood may be realized as soon as possible.

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2200

Sugihara Seishiro
President, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

On September 18, 2024, in Shenzhen, China, a boy pupil of a local Japanese school and his mother were attacked by a 44-years-old Chinese man and the boy was stabbed to death.

The incident was supposedly caused by the patriotic education implemented by Jiang Zemin, who became general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 1989, aiming to promote hostility against a particular state. Thus, the tragic incident occurred as the result of anti-Japan education. The anti-Japan education was introduced as means of oppressing the democratization movement like the Tiananmen incident and maintaining the rule of the Chinese Communist Party within China.

At the present time, the rational way for a state to operate is by being a democratic state where those who hold the political power are regularly replaced by the will of the people and the national will is largely formed according to the wishes of the people who constitute the state. In ancient states, the election itself was impossible. Since the election is possible today, it is a right concept in view of the evolution of the law that the will of the state should reflect the choice of the people through election.

Today, however, a type of tyrannical state exists where a certain political body like the communist party or an individual takes hold of the political power and such a group or an individual determines the will of the state. When comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two political systems, in terms of the deterrent of war, it becomes clear that the democratic state is superior.

In Japan’s history, the Japanese people have been belligerent in certain periods. Now, after having gone through the tragic experiences in World War II and when its battle scenes are conveyed at hand on television and through social media, the people cannot be belligerent in principle. That is because we realize that if a war begins, the people constituting the state will be forced to risk their lives on the battleground. If people feel the danger, naturally, a trend to avoid war emerges among them, which affects the will of the state, leading to deterrence against war.

On the other hand, in a despotic state, the group or individual holding the power never faces the danger of death when a war is started as the will of the state. Consequently, the sense of the necessity to avoid war becomes weaker. Moreover, to maintain its despotic rule, which is not consigned by the people, the ruler may think it necessary to keep the people under stress and possibly resort to waging a war as a means of doing so. Therefore, a despotic state has weaker deterrence against war.

Applying this argument to the antagonistic education against a particular state, it goes without saying that such hostile education against a specific state itself is far from agreeable when it comes to global peace in the 21st century. In a despotic state, the power holding group or individual must establish a policy merely to maintain the despotic rule within the state and exercise the political power for that sake. The ruler may say that it is for the benefit of the state, but, in fact, it is merely for the sake of maintaining the despotic system and for the sake of the ruling group or the individual’s benefit.

Depriving people from their freedoms in a despotic state is an inevitable consequence of the need to maintain the despotic regime and, as a result, the people are oppressed.

While the Chinese people today violently hate Japan, totally affected by the anti-Japan education, at the same time they are robbed of their freedom by the power holding group or the individual and feel desperate under the harsh oppression.

Now, I would like to make a suggestion to the Chinese-origin people all over the world. Presently, there are many people of Chinese background in the United States, Australia and elsewhere who have obtained the nationality in the respective countries and live free from the rule of the Chinese Government. To our surprise, those Chinese-origin people sometimes agitate to promote anti-Japan education in cooperation with the Chinese Government’s overseas propaganda activities or work for the Chinese Government’s “wolf-warrior diplomacy.”

Now, it is time to stop and think. Is it tantamount to leaving the Chinese people in mainland China suffer, unilaterally deprived of their freedom and helping the tyranny go on or even become harsher? If you cooperate with the Chinese Government in this way, that will strip the freedom of the Chinese people in mainland China even further and cause them to suffer in a worse way.

If Chinese-origin people in the world with nationalities other than mainland China criticize the way the Chinese Government is now and resist it, the action will lead to helping the fellow Chinese people and contribute to world peace. I truly want to appeal to the Chinese people with foreign nationalities to take a considerate and brave action.

Nonoda Takahiro
Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2129

1. Introduction—the popularization of the Internet and the present

The commercial use of the Internet was authorized in 1994, and since then the Internet has been an indispensable infrastructure in our present-day social life. An ubiquitous society where everything is inter-connected through a network, which this author referred to in the iRICH statement of December 2022 that Professor Sakamura Ken conceived “a society where everything is connected to a network” (ubiquitous or later, IoT (Internet of Things)[i], has been realized more than thirty years after the TRON project (The Real-time Operating System Nucleus) launched.

In this paper, bearing in mind that with the Internet the way information is disseminated and shared has drastically changed, let me discuss the aggregated information in the World Wide Web (WWW) and its relation to historical controversies.

2.From Web1.0 to Web3.0 

In Web1.0, many individuals have their own website and disseminate diary entries, photos, hobbies and other things of interest. The characteristic of WWW during this phase was that “sender” and “receiver” were clearly present. In this WWW generation, expertise and information were completely within the individual website and the necessary information was being accessed through search engines.

In Web2.0[ii], a large volume of information is concentrated into an information-disseminating platform. YouTube and Wikipedia serve as such platforms. Social networking services, such as Facebook, Instagram and Line attract many users, and information is disseminated toward bilateral directions. These platforms are provided by private companies and naturally, companies providing infrastructure to run such platforms become prevailing.[iii] The so-called GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) companies are famous and control information in the name of “community rules.”

Web3.0[iv] intends to be free from dependance on platforms. Ultimately, this invention can be considered an effort to make WWW free space by eliminating the need for GAFAM. Concretely, they try to become less dependent on platforms by setting up information diversely.

3.World Wide Web and historical controversies

At the time of Web1.0, individual or group disseminators expressed their own views in the form of a website and the information was posted diversely. In that way, few arguments occurred and even if they did, they were dealt with within the individual website and no all-out argument involving the entire WWW could occur.

In Wikipedia, as an example of the platforms of the Web2.0 period, users post articles on a specific issue and the information is put in order after users’ reviews are posted and the ultimate agreement is reached. In Wikipedia, according to their rules[v], it is required to allow posted information to be cited by viewers and to clearly specify websites, academic papers and publications as information sources. Since there is a risk of authors of articles having partial information sources, to brush up articles with respect to impartiality, a reviewing process is very useful, contributing greatly to this effort. If arguments go the wrong way, Wikipedia information can become biased or misleading or even fake. When getting information from Wikipedia, users should be aware of this risk.

4.Historical controversies in generative AI

Information produced by generative AI, as mentioned in the previous section, largely depends on “teachers’ data” and “machine learning.” Brushing up by machine learning is “expected”, but since this is based on the “view of human nature as fundamentally good,” there is a risk of fake information to be provided by ill-intentioned users. Generative AI has a grave technical issue of how to eliminate ill-willed users.

5.Conclusion

Thus, the history of the World Wide Web has been briefly explained. While information is integrated and stored as a mammoth date file, it is eventually used by a system like generative AI, which extracts information from the gigantic database and presents it as transformed texts.

In historical studies, false study results have been disseminated to the world, and to correct such false results, not only researchers but also the public should realize that in pursing true historical studies, the use of AI has certain limitations. “Teachers’ data” which are the basis of the conclusion generative AI extracts are mostly based on wrong study results in the past, so generative AI makes conclusions based on wrong data and naturally, such conclusions induced by generative AI are wrong. Let me conduct a case study on a theme the International Research Institute of Controversial Histories deals with.

[Case Study]: Evaluation of generative AI in the “comfort women issue”

As an example of generative AI, let me put a question to the two versions of the typical general AI system ChatGPT and examine the results. Let us ask the generative AI system an ambiguous question. The purpose is to analyze in how many sentences the AI answers the question and whether the answer is based on multiple-phased viewpoints (unbiased). As generative AI, ChatGPT is used with the versions GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o.

GPT-4o is a later-versioned AI system, which is equipped with consolidated teachers’ data and tuned-up generative AI engine.

Question: About Comfort women in the Greater East Asian War

Answer (GPT3.5)

The issue of comfort women during the Greater East Asia War (Pacific War) refers to the Japanese military establishing comfort stations in war zones and forcibly mobilizing women (especially those who served during the war) to be used as sexual slaves. This is considered a form of military sexual exploitation and human rights violation during wartime. The Japanese government has previously taken steps to apologize and provide compensation for this issue, but there remain differences in recognition and historical perspectives among the victims and involved parties.

Author’s analysis and consideration:

The contents closely resemble the likely words inscribed on the comfort woman statues built in the United States. The answer is short in less than 200 words. The answer is written only from the viewpoint of the victims and remains a one-sided account.

Answer (GPT-4.0)

The comfort women issue during the Greater East Asia War (World War II) is a historical problem involving the forced use of women as sex slaves by the Japanese military during the war. Below is an overview of the issue.

Background

Comfort women refer to women who were forced to work in comfort stations set up to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers. These women were gathered not only from Japan but also from Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other regions occupied by Japan.

Recruitment Methods

Many comfort women were forcibly taken through violence and deception. The recruitment involved the military and government, and women were often tricked into going by promises of good jobs.

Conditions in Comfort Stations

Life in the comfort stations was extremely harsh. The women were subject to daily sexual violence, and their health deteriorated. Many of them could not return home until the war ended, and even after returning, they continued to suffer from psychological and physical trauma.

Postwar Response

After the war, the Japanese government denied or downplayed the comfort women issue for a long time. However, in the 1990s, former comfort women began to speak out, attracting international attention. In 1993, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono issued the “Kono Statement,” acknowledging the Japanese military’s involvement and coercion, and apologized. However, the issue remains unresolved, with ongoing debates over historical recognition and compensation.

Current Situation

The comfort women issue is a particularly important topic in Japan-South Korea relations. In 2015, the Japanese and South Korean governments reached an agreement for a “final and irreversible resolution,” but there has been strong opposition to this agreement, and the issue remains unresolved.

The comfort women issue needs to continue to be discussed as an important historical matter, respecting the dignity and human rights of the women who were victims of the war.

Author’s analysis and consideration:

There are 723 words, three times more than the other answer. However, this answer leaves much to be desired, with a lot of grave fake statements and misinformation. Wrong expressions mentioned are “sex slaves” and “Many of them could not return home until the war ended.” If the person who asked is well-informed, mistakes are easily detected. The answer is mixed with fake information, as mentioned in the statement. It is important to nourish media literacy.

Conclusion of the case study

We can clearly see that in obtaining information regarding controversial historical issues, through generative AI, overseas views of history are strongly reflected, and the system is not yet sufficient to disseminate Japanese views of history to the world. However, information disseminated from Japan came to be adopted among teachers’ data, which helps improve the situation. Therefore, it is important to disseminate Japanese views of history widely in English.

As shown by the case study, the ability to discern the authenticity of information or consider the bias is strongly required of an individual. As information along the line of the receiver’s intention is presented on a priority basis,[vi] it is necessary for the receiver to bear this preference in mind and always be careful about whether the obtained information is biased.

---

[i] YRP Ubiquitous Network Laboratory, greeting from the director (online), cited on July 27, 2024, https://www2.ubin.jp/overview/greeting/.

[ii] O’Reilly Tim. What is Web2.0. (online), cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

[iii] Iseki Yosuke. World-class cyber jurist discusses “the problem of Web2.0 before the launch of Web3.” Forbes (online), cited on July 27, 2024. https://forbesjapan.com/articles/detail/48144.

[iv] ecbeing. What is Web3.0(Web3)? Dispersive next-generation Internet-ecbeing (online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.ecbing.net/contents/detail/318.

[v] Wikipedia. Wikipedia: policy and guideline. Wikipedia(online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E6%96%B9%E9%87%9D%E3%81%9D%E3%81%A8%E3%82%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3.

[vi] Kaonavi. What is filter bubble phenomenon? Counter-measures using easy examples, kaonavi(online) cited on July 26, 2024. https://www.kaonavi.jp/dictionay/filter-bubble/.

Hiromichi Moteki
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2133

1．How do junior high school history textbooks describe the Marco Polo Bridge incident and the Second Sino-Japanese War?

How do school history textbooks of respective publishers deal with the Marco Polo Bridge incident that triggered the Second Sino-Japanese War and the ensuing expansion of the war?

Tokyo Shoseki: In July 1937, on the event of armed clash between the Japanese and Chinese Armies around the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing (the Marco Polo Bridge incident), the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out. The conflict spread toward Shanghai in central China to become an all-out war.

Teikoku Shoin: In July of the following year (1937), triggered by the Marco Polo Bridge incident in the suburbs of Beijing in which the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed, the Second Sino-Japanese War started. The Japanese Army also invaded from Southern China and occupied Shanghai and Nanjing, the then capital of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) Government.

Kyoiku Shuppan: In July 1937, triggered by the Marco Polo Bridge incident in which the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed, the Second Sino-Japanese War started. In August, the battle spread to Shanghai and without declaring war, the Japanese Army incessantly strengthened forces and expanded the war front.

Yamakawa Shuppan: Amid the worsening relationship between Japan and China, in July 1937, at the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing, the Japanese and Chinese Armies clashed (the Marco Polo Bridge incident). Coping with this situation, Prime Minister Konoe Fumimaro adopted at first a non-expansion policy. However, under the pressure from the military and in the face of the nation supporting the military, he changed the original policy, increased the forces and expanded the war zone into an all-out war.

Nihon Bunkyo Shuppan: In July 1937, at the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing, an incident of military clash occurred between the Japanese and Chinese Armies. This incident triggered a war between Japan and China and in August, which spread to Shanghai. Thus, Japan and China entered an all-out war without declaring war. (The Second Sino-Japanese War).

Ikuho-sha: InJuly 1937, amid the growing tension between Japan and China, the Japanese Army stationed in Beijing was fired at by unknown perpetrator while training near the Marco Polo Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing and a battle started between the Japanese and Chinese Armies (the Marco Polo Bridge incident). The Japanese Cabinet of Konoe Fumimaro adopted a non-expansion policy but then decided to increase the forces. In August, the Chinese Army killed a Japanese military officer in Shanghai, which triggered a battle between the Chinese Army and the Japanese Army stationed in Shanghai.

Reiwa Shoseki: And in July of the following year, 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge incident occurred. At that time, the Japanese Army was stationed in Beijing, following the treaty concluded after the Boxers Rebellion which took place in 1900. Japanese troops, engaged in a night drill near the Marco Polo Bridge, were attacked by an unknown shooter. At dawn on the following day, the Japanese Army attacked the base of the Nationalist Revolutionary Army, which escalated into a battle between the two Armies. After this incident, those who were against escalation and wanted to resolve the matter promptly and those who supported escalation to defeat the Nationalist Revolutionary Army on this occasion conflicted with each other. In due time, cease-fire agreement was reached, but Prime Minister Konoe decided to dispatch troops to the Chinese North. In August, when a battle broke out in Shanghai, Prime Minister Konoe abandoned the non-escalation policy and entered an all-out war.

2．The cease-fire agreement on the scene (July 11) tells the very truth about the Marco Polo Bridge incident

We have seen the respective publishers’ descriptions. Tokyo Shoseki, Teikoku Shoin, Kyoiku Shuppan, Yamakawa Shuppan and Nihon Bunkyo Shuppan unanimously write that a military clash incident between Japan and China at the Marco Polo Bridge led to the total war, without mentioning which side attacked first as if the incident happened accidentally and then the incident grew into a bigger conflict.

Ikuhosha, unlike the above mentioned six publishers, writes that the Japanese military “was shot by someone unknown”, but does not at all mention “from which side.”

Reiwa Shoseki also mentions “being shot by someone,” but does not mention at all “from which side,” either.

In fact, there is extremely powerful evidence regarding “which side opened fire.” It is the “on-the- spot cease-fire agreement,” exchanged by both parties on July 11, four days after the incident. It was a paper agreed to by both parties, the Japanese Army (China Stationed Army (6500 strong) and Chinese 29th Army (100,000 strong) and is very important as such. The agreement consists of the following three paragraphs:

1. The representative of the 29th Army expresses regret to the Japanese military, punishes the one in charge and declares with responsibility that an incident like this shall never occur again in future.
2. The Chinese Army is stationed too close to the Japanese Army at Fengtai, which may easily lead to a conflict, therefore, troops will not be stationed at the east bank of Youngding River near the Marco Polo Bridge and peace and order will be kept by security troops.
3. Considering that the incident was provoked by the so-called Blue Shirts Society, the Communist Party and other anti-Japan bodies, measures shall be taken against them, together with a complete crackdown.

In the first paragraph, the Chinese Army apologizes, admitting that the responsibility for the incident rests on the Chinese side and promises to punish the one in charge. It is not to specify the “perpetrator,” but since the Communist Party can be a possible suspect, they promise to conduct thorough crackdown. In either way, China apologizes for the fact that the perpetrator was Chinese.

Despite the presence of such a clear fact, publishers do not refer to this agreement at all but write ambiguously that “The Chinese Army and Japanese Army clashed,” as if out of the blue, which seems to be an attempt to conceal the true perpetrator. In gist, they neglected the most important “on-the-spot cease-fire agreement” only because they wanted to assert that “the perpetrator was the Japanese Army” intending to escalate the conflict into a total war.

In fact, the description of Jiyu-sha used to mention the on-the-spot cease-fire agreement but did not put the original text of this agreement. They were afraid if they had put it, the textbook would surely fail the accreditation of the China-conscious Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

In the revised textbook this time, they put this agreement in the column of the textbook with firm belief that it is perfectly adequate to put the solid fact.

Fortunately, the textbook passed the accreditation and the historical fact revealing the truth about the Marco Polo Bridge incident is duly presented in a junior high school textbook.

3．It was not due to “the expansionist” that the war expanded 

Next, what is wrong is that “each of the publishers writes about the reason why the war expanded as if the war escalated in a natural course or that there were expansionists in the Japanese Government and urged by the military and civilian supporters of the expansion policy, war was expanded into a total war.

Here, the very important fact is decisively overlooked. It is the fact that mass murder of civilians was committed by the Chinese Army on July 29 (Tongzhou mutiny), as Frederick Vincent Williams put, “to be recorded in history as the worst mass slaughter ever committed since the ancient time to this day.” As calls “to punish China the outrageous” rose across Japan, the Japanese Government made an epoch-making peace plan (Funatsu Peace Plan) on August 5. The government subdued the voices that demanded “to punish China the outrageous” and maintained the non-expansion policy. The theory that the Japanese people’s anger at the massacre at Tongzhou led to the expansion of the Second Sino-Japanese War is completely wrong.

Based on this peace plan, the first negotiation was held on August 9. However, on the evening of that day, First Lieutenant Oyama of Navy Land Battle Army and First Class Seaman Saito were brutally killed in Shanghai. This atrocity was committed by a power willing to prevent the peace-making efforts. According to the book Mao: the Unknown Story written by Ms. Jung Chang, the murder incident was ordered by Commander Zhang Zhi-zhong of the Nanjing and Shanghai Defense Army, a crypto-Communist Party member. The peace negotiations failed, but it was not because Japan got angry and expanded the attacks. In this case, too, it was the Chinese side that plotted the attack. On August 13, four days later, the 30,000-strong Regular Chinese Army hiding in the demilitarized zone in Shanghai started a total attack on the 4,500-strong Japanese Navy Land Battle Army stationed in Shanghai to protect 30,000 Japanese civilians. Japan could not overlook Chinese negligence of the safety of Japanese residents and the agreement and decided to dispatch two Divisions from mainland Japan. Thus, the decisive expansion of war was plotted by the Chinese side and it never caused by the Japanese expansionists. In addition, on August 15, China issued the National Mobilization Order.

Such important facts are not at all written in school textbooks, but it is written as if “expansionists” and Japanese people’s anger caused the war to expand. How deplorable!

In the first place, in the Tokyo Shoseki textbook, at the beginning of the section “the Second-Sino Japanese War and the War-time regime,” it is asked, “How Japan came to wage the Second-Sino Japanese War and how the war affected the Japanese people.” The textbook ignores the fact and on the premise that Japan started the Second Sino-Japanese War explains the Marco Polo Bridge incident and how things went afterwards. What a pity that such literally “anti-Japan” and “anti-fact” descriptions pass the accreditation of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology!