Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2553
SUGIHARA, Seishiro
President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories
Last year marked the eightieth anniversary of the end of the War. While overviewing this historical period, I feel it necessary to point out that sometime during the postwar years, Japan was ruled by “those who benefitted from the lost war“ and ceased to be the country it used to be. In 2025, eighty years after the War ended, there seem to be some indications that the rule by “benefiters from the lost war” is fading away, but today it appears that Japan still remains in the mire of serious distortions brought by that horrible rule.
“Lost-war benefiters” are literally those who have benefitted from the lost war. In addition, the term also includes those who should have been expelled from public office but evaded the dire fate and remained in their positions by skillfully behaving and catering to the Allied Occupation Forces.
On December 7 (U.S. calendar), 1941, the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor and on the following day, December 8, President Roosevelt stated in the United States Congress of both Houses that without any warning Japan suddenly attacked while negotiations were going on, which was an impermissible act deliberately planned over a long time. He bitterly cited Japan’s despicable act and all the lawmakers, except one female member, agreed to declare war against Japan. The American people who had been reluctant to start a war until then instantly cried out, “Remember Pearl Harbor” and swore, in unison, to totally defeat Japan.
Based on such nation-wide anger, when Roosevelt met British Prime Minister Churchill at Casablanca in January 1943, he declared, at a press conference, pretending as if it was a slip of tongue that Germany, Japan and Italy shall surrender “unconditionally.” Then, in February 1945 at Yalta, Roosevelt concluded a secret pact with Stalin that the Soviet Union would start a war with Japan in two to three months after the war between Germany and the Soviet Union was over. On the next day, Churchill said, learning about this secret pact, “If they tell Japan about the secret pact and urge Japan to surrender, Japan will surrender, leading to the earlier end of the war with Japan.” However, Roosevelt flatly rejected Churchill’s suggestion.
Regarding Japan, Roosevelt probably thought that just as what happened in Germany later, the U.S. Forces would completely occupy mainland Japan and annihilate the nation totally. At that point of time, the atomic bomb was not yet completed. and it was undecided how to deal with it in the war with Japan. Supposedly, Roosevelt was thinking of imposing more cruel fate on Japan than dropping an atomic bomb. Fortunately, Roosevelt died suddenly on April 12 and after his death, through the efforts of Joseph Grew, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan at the time when the war between Japan the United States broke out, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and Japan accepted it to end the war, avoiding the fate of total annihilation that Roosevelt supposedly had in mind.
Immediately after Roosevelt’s sudden death, Vice President Truman became President. Truman promptly declared that he would firmly follow Roosevelt’s political line and said that the United States would demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. On June 18, Truman convened a meeting to make the final military decision on the war with Japan, calling the military brass to the White House. A view that insisting on “unconditional surrender” would incur larger casualties was presented by the military. However, Truman said that accepting the American people’s anger, he could not manage to change the national opinion regarding this issue and declared that he would continue the policy line of demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender. Although it was already clear that Japan lost the war, they officially decided to carry out the plan then under way of landing operation on mainland Japan.
And as mentioned above, on account of efforts made by Grew and others, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and the landing operation on mainland Japan was never to be carried out. However, the dropping of atomic bombs was not avoided. Why couldn’t the United States put down the flag of unconditional surrender? That was because at the start of the war between Japan and the United States, the United State believed that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in a despicable surprise attack. It was assumed that since Japan did not send any message prior to the attack, it was nothing but “a surprise attack.”
However, fact is that the Japanese Government was to hand the ultimatum to Secretary of State Hull thirty minutes prior to the start of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But a last-minute blunder took place in the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C., and the ultimatum was not handed within the designated time. Although the Japanese Ministry at home sent the directive to Washington as an emergency alert, the officer in charge did not follow the direction and the person responsible for typing the telegram in cipher was out of the Embassy to play in town, so the typing was not completed within the designated hour. Thus, the ultimatum failed to be handed to the United States on time.
Since Roosevelt and the senior military officers had decoded and read all the Japanese diplomatic telegrams, they clearly knew the delay in handing the ultimatum was due to the clerical blunder within the Japanese Embassy. However, they did not reveal this fact to the Congress or the people. After Roosevelt’s sudden death, when Truman became President, Truman did not know the fact about the failure of handing the ultimatum in advance and believed that a despicable “surprise attack” took place, as the American people did. Therefore, he could not put down the flag of “unconditional surrender.” When the atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima on August 6 and over Nagasaki on August 9, Truman said that they accomplished the well-done revenge for the “surprise attack.” Such were the facts. Then, it follows that the delay in handing the “ultimatum” was used by Roosevelt’s government, which forced Japan to enter the cruel and disastrous war. As mentioned before, the Potsdam Declaration was issued and Japan was able to surrender before the Soviet invaded mainland Japan, but the dropping of atomic bombs could not be avoided.
How was the issue of “surprise attack,” which led to such devastating war, treated in Japan?
In the middle of the war, all the Japanese Embassy staff in Washington D.C. came home to Japan aboard the exchange and repatriation ship. The two officials who were directly responsible for the delay in handing the “ultimatum” were among the returnees. The delay in handing the “ultimatum” was a serious matter, but amid the raging war, there was no time for dealing with it and it was left unattended. Once the war was over, the occupation started. But it remained a mystery to the Occupation Forces why Japan launched the surprise attack without any advance notice. They did not understand why Japan staged a surprise attack which could be useful only to incite American anger.
On September 26, 1945, the Emperor and MacArthur met for the first time. Regarding the fact that the war between Japan and the United States started by the “surprise attack,” the Emperor said to the effect that he was betrayed by Tojo. The Emperor just said what the Foreign Ministry had prepared for him to say. That was the plot devised by Yoshida Shigeru, who then was the Foreign Minister.
Such a grave issue as where the responsibility rested cannot have been left unquestioned within the Foreign Ministry. Around April 1944, within the Foreign Ministry, an investigation started with the purpose to completely clarify how the “ultimatum” failed to be handed to Secretary Hull in time. However, as soon as the probe started, Yoshida Shigeru ordered to halt the investigation.
Yoshida’s attempt to conceal the responsibility regarding the “surprise attack” did not stop here. When the occupation period was over, he promoted the member of the personnel who had failed to follow the order from the Ministry at home to be on emergency alert on the night before the war broke out and should have been duly dismissed disciplinarily, but instead he was promoted to Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs. Moreover, after Japan restored its sovereignty, the other officer who had been responsible for typing the telegram but had gone out of the Embassy to play in town was also promoted to Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Yoshida Shigeru concealed not only the responsibility for the “surprise attack” but also the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs related to the War by surprisingly managing personnel affairs of the Ministry. He fortified the Foreign Ministry with personnel who had been at the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C., the most responsible for the war between Japan and the United States and personnel at the Embassy in Berlin, Germany. By doing so, Yoshida made the Embassy staff keep silence about the war and perfectly covered up the entire responsibility of the Foreign Ministry related to the U.S.-Japanese War.
Yoshida Shigeru’s concealment of the war responsibility on the part of the Foreign Ministry was further-reaching and on larger scale. After Japan’s sovereignty was restored on April 28, 1952, Yoshida remained Prime Minister. After the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty, the foremost task was to resume the work of the “war investigation committee,” which had been disbanded under the occupation. However, Yoshida did not resume it.
One of the tasks of the Shidehara Kijuro cabinet, established on October 9, 1945, was to clarify the cause and course of the previous war by the Japanese themselves and the “war investigation committee” was established by cabinet decision. However, speaking of investigation of war, it is essential to seek the truth about the war and that was inconvenient to the Allied Forces whose agenda was based on lies. It was particularly inconvenient to the Soviet Union, which invaded Japan, violating the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. Therefore, the Soviet Union led the proposition against the “war investigation committee” and it was ordered to disband by the Occupation Forces.
Under such circumstances, to Yoshida Shigeru, who remained Prime Minister after the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty, the foremost task was to resume the activities of the “war investigation committee.” However, Yoshida did not restore the committee or rather could not do so. That was because it would become compulsory to account for the role and responsibility the Foreign Ministry should have borne in the previous war.
Then, the negative influence of Yoshida’s failure to reopen the “war investigation committee” is not at all slight. If the work of the “war investigation committee” had been resumed, it must have referred to the issue of how Japan had fared under the occupation. If so, it would have been made clear at that point that under the stringent censorship during the occupation, the Japanese people were deprived of freedom of speech and trapped in the “closed speech sphere.”
If the “war investigation committee” had been held, it would have become clear that the Japanese people were silenced in the “closed speech sphere” under the occupation and then may have gained the opportunity to escape from the “closed speech sphere.” However, without the “war investigation committee” in action, the “closed speech sphere” was so cunningly created by the Occupation Forces under their occupation that the Japanese people in general did not realize its presence and the “closed speech sphere” would go on existing unnoticed and unrecognized.
In other words, the “closed speech sphere” created by the Occupation Forces in Japan under their occupation would come to be maintained by the Japanese people themselves after Japan restored its sovereignty.
More can be said. In such “closed speech sphere,” the self-defamatory view of history which the Occupation Forces tried to imprint on the Japanese people during occupation will continue to flourish.
Furthermore, this “self-degrading” view of history is extremely convenient to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that hid the war responsibility. The self-defamatory view of history imposed by the Occupation Forces is, plainly speaking, that the previous war was an aggressive war the Japanese military waged, deceiving the people. Here, the Foreign Ministry is not to be blamed, which is convenient to the Foreign Ministry. After all, quite reversibly, the Foreign Ministry is a governmental organ to keep the “self-degrading view of history” intact.
The negative consequences became more serious as time passed. At the time of the restoration of Japan’s sovereignty in 1952, very few Japanese people believed in the Nanjing Incident, which was condemned during the Tokyo Trials under occupation regime. Nevertheless, confined in the closed speech sphere, more Japanese people gradually came to say that the Nanjing incident did take place. As a result of censorship of historical discourse for the most of the eighty-year post-war period, the perception that the Nanjing incident was real found wider support. The alleged forced abduction of comfort women was at one time believed to be factual within the “closed speech sphere.”
Yoshida Shigeru remained Prime Minister after Japan restored her sovereignty and notoriously contributed to the perpetuation of the negative assets of the occupation by the Occupation Forces. Among them, especially serious was the issue of Japan’s self-defense right over Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. Even today, Japan remains in fetters.
Yoshida introduced the official interpretation that Article 9 grants Japan self-defense right, but Japan shall not possess military power or the right of belligerency. This interpretation may have made certain sense under occupation in relation with MacArthur’s military force present in Japan, but after Japan restored her sovereignty, such interpretation is not adequate and should have been revised simultaneously after the restoration of sovereignty. If they thought the change of interpretation was impossible, they should have immediately started working to revise the Constitution.
Fundamentally, however, Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan refers to the issue of self-defense right as State and it must be interpreted rationally. According to the rational interpretation, within the limit of defense war, both “military strength” and “the right of belligerency” shall be possessed, which is right in terms of constitutional law. If not, Article 9 is not literally consistent with the civilian clause of Article 66-2) “The Prime Minister and other Ministers of State must be civilians.”
Regarding this point, Koyama Tsunemi, the chief author of New Civics Textbook, by Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, mentioned a respectable view in the book On Constitution and Imperial House Law co-authored by Sugihara (Jiyu-sha, 2017). He maintains that partly because the Constitution was made forcibly under the occupation by the Occupation Forces, it contains essentially invalid parts. Therefore, the entire Constitution should be declared invalid and then those parts which realistically stand valid should be declared valid, retrospectively at the time of enactment. Then, it is against natural law to deny the “military power” and “the right of belligerency.” To make Article 9 valid, it must be interpreted that “military power” and “right of belligerency” are retained in case of war of self-defense. I think all constitutional scholars and lawmakers should listen to his assertion.
However, when it comes to Article 9, Japan’s constitutional studies roughly match the present Government’s official interpretation. And the official interpretation of the Constitution is close to the one established by the jurists of the University of Tokyo, the Faculty of Law during the occupation period. The University of Tokyo’s constitutional studies were created by Miyazawa Toshiyoshi, who is a typical “benefiter from the lost war.” Immediately after Japan lost the war, he bravely stated that there was no need to revise the Constitution of the Empire of Japan. However, once “Memorandum on the Elimination of Undesirable Persons from Public Office” was issued by the Allied Occupation Forces, Miyazawa came to develop overnight constitutional studies flattering the Occupation Forces.
Then, the constitutional studies of the Faculty of Law of the University of Tokyo, which have great impact on the Government today and is the mainstream of Japan’s constitutional studies can be termed “lost-war benefiters’ constitutional studies created by “lost-war benefiters.” These concepts were created during the occupation period and have been handed down to this day as the constitutional studies of the Faculty of Law, the University of Tokyo. The scholars’ world is dominated by something like grand-master system. Once the constitutional studies were established, even though they turn out to be false, only a person that acknowledges and maintains them can succeed to the chair of professorship. Japan’s constitutional studies remain the same as the constitutional studies of the lost-war benefiters, maintained through the grand-master system. As it is, there is no chance for genuine constitutional studies to be revived within the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law. To escape from it, the only hope is for the Government to get free from this scholarly interpretation and declare the essential constitutional interpretation. And it is the power of the people that can make the Government follow the genuine constitutional studies.
You may wonder how dubious the constitutional studies of the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law are. During the occupation period, when it was not known that MacArthur forced Japan to make its Constitution, stating that the Emperor is Head of State, Miyazawa Toshiyuki at the Faculty of Law, the University of Tokyo presented an interpretation that the Emperor is not Head of State, catering to the Occupation Forces. Having been impacted by this, the present Japanese Government does not clearly say that the Emperor is Head of State. The Japanese people must know that it is easy for the Japanese government to establish the interpretation that the Emperor is the Head of State of Japan at the request of the Japanese people. Incidentally, regarding this issue, there is a book Brainwashing named the University of Tokyo, Faculty of Law (Business-sha, 2019), written by Kurayama Mitsuru.
During the period when “lost-war benefiters” controlled the state and society, some evaluated Yoshida Shigeru as a significant contributor to the economic growth in postwar Japan. This is utterly groundless evaluation.
The grand design of postwar Japan’s economic development was already made by the Occupation Forces. As the Cold War was progressing, the Occupation Forces clearly presented a policy for Japan to become economically rich, and as early as in 1948, Joseph Dodge came to Japan from the United States and forcibly presented the nine economic growth principles to Japan. In addition, he allowed Japan to conduct unlimited trade with the United States. Furthermore, he prevented the U.S. capital from invading Japan lest the Japanese people should bear a grudge against America.
Others think that Yoshida contributed to economic growth because he limited the arming of Japan by spending less for national defense. However, this is another groundless evaluation fabricated by “lost-war benefiters.” South Korea was totally devastated by the Korean War and desperately needed a huge amount of compensation from Japan to stimulate country’s economic growth. However, despite the huge spending for national defense, amounting to around 7% of its national budget at one time, South Korea has become a highly prosperous economy today.
It can be stated to certain extent that Yoshida Shigeru built a smooth relationship with MacArthur during the occupation period, but other than that, he left only damage. In the society where “lost-war benefiters” had their way, totally extravagant things happened. For example, in 1964, Curtis LeMay, who led the Tokyo Air Raids that claimed 100, 000 lives in 1945, was decorated with Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, to our utter dismay.
When Yoshida Shigeru died on October 20, 1967, Japan’s state and society at the time bid farewell to the deceased in the form of state funeral. It was natural that state funeral was held for Yoshida Shigeru because it was the time when the Japanese state and society were totally controlled by the “lost-war benefiters” and Yoshida was the supreme ringleader of them all.
The existence of the “closed speech sphere” was revealed by Eto Jun from 1979 to 1980, and present-day Japan is getting considerably free from that “closed speech sphere.” Trapped in the middle of “closed speech sphere,” speaking of peace, one must pretend not to notice soldiers who had fought and died for the sake of country or ignore their sacrifices. Today, however, people can freely and dearly remember those victims of the war and speak of “peace.” The period dominated by the lost-war benefiters” is clearly over.
Anyhow, eighty years after the War, we must clearly recognize that there was a period when the “lost-war benefiters” dominated Japan. Otherwise, we cannot return to Japan as it originally had been.
Quite regrettably, Yoshida Shigeru’s evaluation as the greatest Prime Minister by far in the postwar years has been profoundly settled in Japan and Japanese society, despite the tremendous damage he brought to postwar Japan. And in the field of constitutional studies, which are the theoretical core of the state, one of the negative assets the “lost-war benefiters” left is the “lost-war benefiters’ constitutional studies” created under the occupation and handed down through the grand-master system to this day that have been reigning unwaveringly even in today’s Japan. The shaffles of negative assets created by the “lost-war benefiters” and imposed on Japan, have not been completely shattered yet, as in the case of constitutional studies. That is why we Japanese people living today must clearly realize that over the eighty years after the end of the War, there was a period dominated by “lost-war benefiters,” and when Japan recovered her sovereignty, Japan failed to liquidate the negative assets which should have been done at that time, but instead they had been expanded and inherited to this day, strictly binding present-day Japan.
On December 8, 1941, Japan entered a war against the United States with no reasonable expectations of winning and was completely defeated, which led to the occupation and quite unavoidably ended up in the forever lasting relationship of superior United States and inferior Japan or the relationship of the ruler and the ruled. This may be unavoidable fate after waging a war, but Japan carried it to the extent even the United States did not anticipate or expect, inheriting all of what the Occupation Forces did, including the negative part of the occupation policy which could have been liquidated at the time when Japan recovered her sovereignty, but rather reversely had been expanded. And all this was done by “lost-war benefiters,” headed by Yoshida Shigeru. As of eighty years after the War, the Japanese people should recognize and bear this fact in mind.
Precisely, on April 28, 1952, when Japan restored its sovereignty, Yoshida Shigeru decided to start Japan by completely covering up the war responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by clearly and respectfully holding up the “self-degrading view of history”, as a semi-state without having the clear theory of defending our country on our own over Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. When he died on October 20, 1967, without any objective grounds, state funeral was held in honor of the Prime Minister who allegedly led the remarkable recovery of Japan with the policy of light armament and hefty economy. On the 80th anniversary of the end of the War we the Japanese should be aware that there was a period in Japan when “lost-war benefiters” dominated, ran rampant and ruled, as these incidents indicate.