カテゴリー: 論説

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories
Researcher

Haruka Ikeda

Japanese Version

Introduction

On April 3 and 24, 2023, at the House of Councilors Committee on Audit, regarding the so-called Nanjing Incident, Councilor Wada Masamune asked Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa about the grounds for the Government’s view posted on the website of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs: “The Japanese Government thinks it undeniable that after the Japanese Army entered the city of Nanjing in 1937, there occurred murders and acts of blunder against non-combatants.” Consequently, Minister Hayashi’s answer revealed that there were no evidential documents on which the Government relied for its official view. According to Ara Kenichi, researcher on the Nanjing Incident, it was in 1982 that the Foreign Ministry came to admit the occurrence of the alleged Nanjing Incident. This decision was probably made, catering to the external pressure and public opinion amid the fading memory of the battleground.

Now, let us examine the ground on which the common theory that “there was Nanjing Incident” is based. The Nanjing Incident is believed to have really taken place primarily because of the third-party witnesses to the effect. At that time, those who condemned the Nanjing Incident through various media were Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing, and at the Tokyo Trials held after the War, the most powerful claims that the Nanjing Incident did happen were statements by the assumingly neutral third-party Europeans and Americans. After the War, those Chinese who suddenly came forth in their old age claiming to be victims associated themselves with the European and American records and asserted the authenticity of their own statements.

In such a verification process of the Nanjing Incident, although statements made by Europeans and Americans who were there in Nanjing at that time were decisively important, the studies on the nature of those statements are surprisingly few. So, this paper confirms the origin of those third-party statements based on the European and American documents at the time and indicates that those original sources were American missionaries who remained in Nanjing and clarifies those missionaries’ activities, intentions and backgrounds.

Hopefully, this paper will reveal the hidden truth of the Nanjing Incident and fundamental errors of the common theory and the Japanese Government’s view.

1. Examination of the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident   
2. Who were the third party remaining in Nanjing?

First, let us confirm the third party (Europeans and Americans) in Nanjing at that time.

In order to witness or examine an incident, one needs to be there on the spot. On December 13, 1937, when the Japanese Army entered the walled city of Nanjing, and for a while after that, there were 22 Europeans and Americans staying in Nanjing. Among them, there were 14 Americans (the majority group) and all of them were missionaries. Besides them, there were 5 Germans, 1 Austrian and 2 White Russians, all of whom were in Nanjing on business. Besides these businessmen, there were 2 Europeans (1 Dane and 1 Briton), who temporarily came to Nanjing and left, and they were also on business. There were five newspaper correspondents (1 Briton, 4 Americans) who left Nanjing a few days after the Japanese Army entered Nanjing. On January 6, 1938, and thereafter, diplomats from respective countries returned to Nanjing, but there were no reports of their witnessing massacres. So, the civilians mentioned above were the third party who might possibly have seen the Nanjing Incident.

• The examination of the original disseminators

Bearing those remainders in mind, let us now examine some of the well-known disseminators of the reports and statements related to the Nanjing Incident.

• The first news report of the Nanjing Incident

Articles written by those correspondents who left Nanjing on December 15, 1937 (The Chicago Daily News, the New York Times, etc.) are said to have been the first report. However, it is confirmed that the original source of these articles was the statement made by American missionary Miner Bates (1897-1978), through Missionary Bates’ letter.[i]

• The theory of 20,000 victims of the massacre stated by Koo Vi Kyuin at a League of Nations conference

At a League of Nations conference in Geneva on February 2, 1938, Chinese Delegate Koo Vi Kyuin (1888-1985) quoted from the Daily Telegram and Morning Post of January 28, 1938: “The number of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese in Nanjing was supposedly twenty thousand.” To confirm the newspaper’s article, it said, “One missionary estimates the number of Chinese slaughtered at Nanjing at 20,000.” As previously mentioned, since missionaries staying in Nanjing then were all American, the original disseminator of this article was an American missionary.

• Records of incidents by the International Committee and the Diaries of Rabe

For the protection and safety of civilians, the American missionaries established the Nanking Safety Zone and the International Committee to administer the safety zone. The records of incidents within the Safety Zone compiled by the Committee[ii] were filled with cases of atrocities committed by the Japanese military. But the Committee was under the control of the American missionaries who held the majority power among the remaining foreigners. Practically, the Committee report was disseminated by the American missionaries.

The Diaries of German John Rabe (1882-1950), who was set up as chairman of the International Committee, was published after the War.[iii] The diary contains many records of massacres committed by the Japanese Army submitted by various missionaries but no records of his own witnessing massacres. The records of massacres in Rabe’s Diary were also originally disseminated by American missionaries.

• Statements made at the Tokyo Trials

After the War, the Nanjing Incident was examined at the Tokyo Trials. There were three Westerners who appeared in the court in person and stated that the Nanjing Incident had taken place and they were American missionaries.

With what I have stated so far, I hope it is understood that the original disseminators of the Nanjing Incident were entirely American missionaries.

• The reason why American missionaries disseminated the Nanjing Incident to the world

• The true purpose for the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone

The purpose of the American missionaries who remained in Nanjing was nominally to establish the neutral and demilitarized Nanking Safety Zone for the safety and protection of the citizens. However, during a meeting held to report on the plan for establishing a safety zone, missionary Mills stated to the contrary effect: “At our meeting Mr. Mills expressed the longing that instead of having all educated people trek westward that it would be far better for a group to go down and try to encourage and comfort the Chinese army and help them to see what disorder and looting among even a small group means to China.”[iv]

Missionary Mills was the central figure (Presbyterian) among the American missionaries in Nanjing and the mastermind of the establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone.[v] Neutrality and one-sided support cannot stand together. From these words of missionary Mills, it becomes clear that the Nanking Safety Zone was established not for the protection of civilians but for the support and protection of the Chinese Army. In fact, there is record that within the Safety Zone, during battles, Chinese artillery operated[vi] and after battles, Chinese soldiers infiltrated into the safety zone and hid themselves there.[vii]

• The Nanjing Incident to justify the Nanking Safety Zone    

From these records, supposedly, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident by the American missionaries was part of protection and support measures for the Chinese Army. The missionaries needed to disseminate the Nanjing Incident. It was because the Nanking Safety Zone was not an officially acknowledged establishment, unlike the Shanghai Safety Zone, which was officially approved by both Japan and China.[viii]

Since the Nanking Safety Zone was dubious in terms of neutrality, the Japanese authorities did not recognize it but during battles, Japan would avoid attacking it so long as it was not militarily necessary. After the battles ceased, the unauthorized Nanking Safety Zone had no longer a reason to exist. After entering Nanjing, the Japanese Army immediately ordered the Zone to be dissolved, which the missionaries refused to follow. On the other hand, the missionaries decided to support and protect the Chinese Army within the zone as missionary Mills had stated and conveyed their intention to Huang Jen Lin (1901-1983),[ix] Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man. It was necessary for the missionaries to maintain the safety zone under their control in order to secretly protect Chinese soldiers in Nanjing. So, to make up a pretext for keeping the safety zone, they needed to fabricate a story of atrocities committed against citizens by the Japanese Army, namely, the dissemination of the Nanjing Incident.

We can judge whether the missionaries’ claim that the safety zone was necessary to protect citizens from the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army was reasonable or not, based on the situation after Nanking Safety Zone was dissolved. On February 4, 1938, the Japanese Army ordered the citizens within the Safety Zone to go home, and practically, the Safety Zone disappeared. On February 8, non-substantial International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone was renamed the Nanking International Relief Committee, having the term “the safety zone” removed. If the missionaries’ claim had been right, after the Safety Zone disappeared, Nanjing would have become a worse hell. However, on March 4, 1938, Chancellor Paul Scharffenberg for the German Embassy recorded, “...we no longer hear of atrocities, and order is also being restored in general.”[x] As a matter of fact, the missionaries’ assertions were not correct.

These documents indicate that the Nanjing Incident existed only when the American missionaries supported and protected the Chinese Army in the Safety Zone. Sabotages by Chinese soldiers hiding within the Safety Zone and fictions made up by the American missionaries in order to justify the existence of the Nanking Safety Zone were all that was to the alleged Nanjing Incident.

• The background for the creation of the Nanjing Incident

By the way, while French Catholic Father Robert Jacquinot (1878-1946), who established the Shanghai Safety Zone kept neutral, why did the American missionaries (Protestants) in Nanjing support and protect the Chinese Army? In the background, there was a resolution clearly showing the relationship between the Chinese Protestant Church and the Chinese (Chiang Kai-shek’s) government:

“Recognizing in the ideals of the New Life Movement many of the same objectives that Christians have always sought, Christians, whether individuals or church groups, be urged to co-operate in the New Life Movement program as far as possible.” (National Christian Council Biennial Meeting, May 6, 1937).[xi]

The National Christian Council is a body representing the Protestant churches in China. And the New Life Movement was substantially Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity for nation building. Therefore, this resolution stated the overall cooperation on the part of the Protestant churches in China as their consensus for the Chiang Kai-shek’s political activity in the name of the “New Life Movement.”

The slogan of the New Life Movement was the “three Life transformations,” namely, “Militarization of Life, Productivization of Life, and Aestheticization of Life [or Rationalization],” Productivization meant participation in productive activities and Aestheticization or Rationalization dealt with upbringing. However, clearly, it started with militarization which meant the movement anticipating the military mobilization of the people. In fact, after the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, the movement included the support for the Chinese Army.

And the missionaries knew that the New Life Movement was a dangerous activity ensconcing a military element.[xii] While they recognized well the military and political colors of the movement, they resolved to totally cooperate with it. The reason was evangelical motives. The missionaries regarded Chiang Kai-shek, who had converted to Protestantism after his marriage to Soong Mei-ling and reawakened to religious worship while he was held under detention during the Xi’an Incident, as a true Christian[xiii], expecting that if Chiang Kai-shek representing the Nationalist Party Kuomintang was to rule China, a Protestant State of China would be born. Thus, they resolved to fully cooperate with the New Life Movement, which was deeply tinted with the military color. In the extension of this resolution lied the American missionaries’ support and protection of the Chinese soldiers in Nanjing.

This relationship between the resolution made by the Chinese National Christian Council and the activities by the American missionaries in the Nanking Safety Zone can be clearly explained. The previously mentioned Mr. Huang Jen Lin, Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man, with whom missionary Mills shared the American missionaries’ plan to support and protect the Chinese Army within the Nanking Safety Zone, was fully in charge of the New Life Movement. The fact that the American missionaries’ support was carried out as a part of the activities to support Chiang Kai-shek’s New Life Movement by Protestants was proved by the very existence of Mr. Huang Jen Lin.

4 Conclusion

The Nanjing Incident was a complete fiction created by the American missionaries. The Nanjing Incident was created by the American missionaries pretending to be the third party who under the great policy of the Protestant Church to protect Protestant Chiang Kai-shek remained in Nanjing to support the Chinese Army. China merely used it.

The true players behind the Nanjing Incident were neither Japan nor China. They were American missionaries, who have been regarded as the third party so far. This is the reason why at the time the Nanjing Incident was widely reported in the United States, fully used by the United States, the victor of World War II, during the Tokyo Trials, and the truth about it remains still unrevealed to this day.

The Japanese Government of 2023 should seriously accept the truth about the Nanjing Incident, immediately remove the view that lacks any solid grounds posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and show the historical truth both at home and abroad for the honor of the Japanese people.

[i] S. M. Bates, “Circular letter to friends,” April 12, 1938

[ii] “Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone” (1939), Kelly & Walsh

[iii] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1997), Hrsg. Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[iv] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[v] “Address of John Rabe at farewell party by staff of Nanking Safety Zone,” February 21, 1938

[vi] John Rabe, December 9, 1937

[vii] New York Times, January 4, 1938

[viii] “Telegram from American Embassy in Shanghai to Nanking Safety Zone Committee,” December 2, !937

[ix] Vautrin, “The Diary of Wilhelmina Vautrin,” November 18, 1937

[x] John Rabe, “Der gute Deutsche von Nanking” (1977), Hrsg, Erwin Wickert, VA(German)

[xi] “The China Christian year book 1936-37 (1937), Arthur H. Clark Company, p.77

[xii] Ronald Rees, “China Faces The Storm” (1938), Edinburgh House Press, p.61

[xiii] Ibid. Ronald Rees, p. 48

For details, refer to the book Primary Historical Sources Reveal the Truth about the Nanjing Incident, unraveling the Curse of the American Missionaries’ View of History written by Ikeda Haruka, 2020, published by Tenden-sha.

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Senior researcher

Nakamura Satoru

日本語

The biggest crisis in Okinawa

Now, Japan is facing its biggest crisis in the postwar years over the issue of the national security. And Okinawa is the main problem. Not only is Okinawa exposed to a military threat from China, but it also is the subject of a history war. However, the Japanese Government has failed to effectively cope with the grave situation. Therefore, Okinawa has become Japan’s largest national security issue. Ever since the clashing incident of a Chinese fishing vessel off the Senkaku Islands took place in 2010, China has been continuously disseminating propaganda to the effect that “Ryukyu has been a member of the Chinese nation since ancient times and now is struggling for independence against the United States and Japan, which China should support.” China’s most important  basis for the claim is the historical view of the “Ryukyu disposal.” According to the Chinese propaganda view of history, Japan has kept Okinawa under its colonial rule ever since the “disposal of Okinawa” in 1879 (the twelfth year of Meiji). On the other hand, in Japan, in 2006, Suzuki Muneo, a member of the House of Representatives, submitted a statement of inquiry to the House of Representatives: “At the time when the Japanese name of era was changed to Meiji in 1868, did the Japanese Government recognize the Ryukyu Kingdom at that time as an indivisible part of the State of Japan? We ask the Government for a clear answer.” The response of the Government was, “Regarding Okinawa, it is difficult to definitively state since when Okinawa became part of Japan. But it is certain that Okinawa was part of Japan at the latest when early in the Meiji era, the Ryukyu Domain became Okinawa Prefecture.” This is extremely ambiguous and void of trustfulness, I must say. Such an ambiguous historical view is greatly favorable to China, which desperately wants Okinawa.

The positioning of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture among the Japanese people

Here, let us consider the position of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, which is termed as “Ryukyu disposal.” The term “Ryukyu disposal” may give a negative impression as if the Ryukyu Kingdom was ruined. Certainly, in Okinawa, Ryukyu disposal generally meant that the Japanese Army came to Shuri Castle and forcibly took over the castle and sent the then head of the Ryukyu Domain, King Sho Tai, to Tokyo. But to be fair, it was not Okinawa alone that had its castle taken over but the same happened at Domains all over Japan. Castles of Kumamoto, Himeji and Matsumoto followed the same fate after the decree of “Abolishing Domains and Establishing Prefectures” was proclaimed and the respective Heads of Domain turned over their castles throughout Japan. Also, after the Heads of the Domain came to Tokyo, they were treated the same way and raised to the peerage. Currently, the present heads of the Shimazu Family and the Tokugawa Family are alive and so is the present head of the Second Shu Family, the descendant of the Ryukyu King. The Ryukyu disposal does not mean that people living in Okinawa were annihilated or the lineage of Ryukyu King had perished. Essentially, the construction of a modern state by the Meiji Restoration was the transition from the feudalistic system of ruling the country by a “family” to the modern ruling by the government. The rule by the Tokugawa Family was gone and in the 300 domains throughout Japan, the rule by the family of the domain head was abolished, and equally in Okinawa, the rule by the Sho Family ceased. And instead, prefectural governors sent by the Ministry of the Interior were placed in charge of the administration throughout Japan.

The Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa and ended with the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture

Looking at the Meiji Restoration from the perspective of Japan’s defense of Okinawa, we can find new significance. In the school history textbooks and history books on the shelves of bookstores, it is interpreted that the Meiji Restoration started with the arrival of the foreign black ships in 1853 at the end of the Edo period and ended with the Seinan Civil War in 1877, the 10th year of Meiji. And as the national border designated after the Meiji Restoration was completed, the Okinawa disposal (the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture) emerged. The Meiji Restoration and the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture were recognized as separate events, which led to the historical view that “as the result of the Meiji Restoration, the Ryukyu Kingdom perished,” and such a view supported the assertion made by a certain power that Okinawa was victimized by Japan or that people of Ryukyu-Okinawa are an indigenous people in Japan. In fact, however, the Meiji Restoration started in Okinawa, the stronghold of the national defense at that time. Patriots in the Satsuma Domain began to feel threatened by the Western Powers when they obtained information that the Chinese Qing dynasty was defeated by Britain in the Opium War in 1842. Two years later, the threat became real. In 1844, French battleship Arcmere came to Ryukyu and its crew demanded that the kingdom open its port. At that time, following the Treaty of Nanjing, the Qing opened her five ports to the Western Powers and Western ships came in a row, approaching Ryukyu. The five ports were Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, and Amoy. Look at the East China Sea on the map. On the way from these five ports to Japan, there is Ryukyu (currently Okinawa), which is best situated as the base for opening Japan to the world. The man who most seriously perceived the crisis and contemplated about what path Japan should follow was Lord Shimazu Nariakira of the Satsuma Domain. As soon as Nariakira became the Lord of Satsuma in 1851, he launched the Shusei-kan enterprise of building Western-style ships, reverberatory furnaces and blast furnaces, manufacturing land mines, torpedoes, glass, gas lamps and so forth in order to build a rich and strong military country by promoting modern industries. Two years prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga, the original framework of the policy to establish a rich and strong military state was implemented in Satsuma (presently Kagoshima), the southernmost part of Japan. The original idea was drafted by Godai Hidetaka, father of Godai Tomoatsu, who led Satsuma’s enlightenment policy after Shimazu Nariakira died. The afore-mentioned Arcmere left, predicting the reentry of a bigger battleship a year later. The Bakufu Government (Tokugawa Shogunate) ordered Satsuma to send guard soldiers to Ryukyu. A member of the personnel who were ordered to sail to Ryukyu asked how to solve the Ryukyu issue and Hidetaka wrote the “Ryukyu secret plan.” The plan specifically stated in the question-and-answer form how to cope with the French military pressure on the part of the Satsuma Domain. The gist of the plan was: in disposal of Ryukyu, implement two alternative policies of refusal and conciliation, 1) refuse to open the country, citing any thinkable excuses and 2) when refusal would not work, then open the country. But never resort to the means of war. And once Japan is opened, Japan must have more powerful military force than the Western countries. Ryukyu disposal was not a plan to destroy Ryukyu, but to protect Ryukyu. That was the root of the secret strategy--the idea of “open the country and become rich and strong military power.” Thus, the Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa.

Ryukyu Cannon Ship

There is a ship that confirms the fact that Shimazu Nariakira felt threatened with respect to the defense of Okinawa. That was the Shohei-maru. At that time, it was impossible to build a huge military ship. The Bakufu Government prohibited the building of large ships as one of the regulations of Buke Shohatto, laws prohibiting the military families from conducting several activities  in order to keep them under control. The laws did not change even when Western battleships started to appear along the coast of the Sea of Japan. Nariakira, worrying about the defense of Ryukyu, consulted with the Shogun’s senior councilor Abe and started building the “Ryukyu cannon ship” at Kinko-wan Bay (presently Kagoshima Bay) in 1853 in order to defend Ryukyu. It was three days prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga. Later, Nariakira remodeled the ship into a Western-style one, renamed it Shohei-maru and dedicated it to the Bakufu Government in 1855. Shimazu Nariakira’s policy of a “rich and strong military state” can be applied to the present-day Japan. As it was at the end of the Bakufu Government, at present, Okinawa is the front of Japan’s defense, and the present Government lacks the strength to protect Okinawa. At the end of the Bakufu Government, a political idea of opening the country and making it rich and militarily strong was born in the Satsuma Domain, which was held responsible for the defense of Ryukyu. Satsuma, after toppling the Edo Bakufu Government, became the center of the Meiji Government, built the Japanese Army, and implemented the policy of making the whole Japan rich and militarily strong, which was the meaning of the Meiji Restoration. Japan lost the power to protect Okinawa on her own, due to the defeat in the Greater East Asian War, and another restoration is indispensable so that Japan may be reborn to become competent enough to protect Okinawa once again. However, the Satsuma Domain does not exist anymore. Japan urgently needs to create a power capable of rebuilding the country’s capacity to defend Okinawa.

*Reference

Tha Secret Plan of Ryukyu [ Original Document ] [ Colloquial Translation ]

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=1406

Kuno Jun, Guest Fellow, Associate Professor, Japan University of Economics

It has been already a year since Russia invaded Ukraine. During all this time, I have been consistently expressing my view at every opportunity as a scholar of modern history. The point in question is not to decide which side is in the right, but to use this occasion to start a serious discussion, based on history, about what we should do for the interest of our country.

Being “based on history” does not mean that we can ignore what is going on at present. Even today, the Japanese Northern Territories and the Chishima Islands (Kuril Islands) are still illegally occupied by Russia. Making things straight, let me explain that the four northern islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Habomai and Shikotan were unlawfully occupied by the Russian Army after the end of the Greater East Asian War. The Kuril Islands legally became Japanese territory by the treaty of exchange between Sakhalin and Kuril concluded in 1875 and South Sakhalin legally became Japanese territory, following the Portsmouth Peace Treaty in 1905. In addition to the Russian illegal invasion, the issue of the detention of Japanese prisoners of war in Siberia after World War II remains unsettled, without any apology nor compensation for the illegal detention on the part of the Soviet Union/ Russia in the postwar years. In other words, Russia has been violating Japan’s sovereignty to this day, ignoring the act of violation of Japan’s sovereignty in the not so distant past by the Soviet Union, from which Russia inherited the status as a legal state. (Further back in the past, before the modern period, there was an incident of Russian invasion (1806-07), which is not to be mentioned any further here.)

While it is natural that there are many varying views and assertions when it comes to diplomatic dealing with Russia, it goes without saying that it is indispensable to recognize the historical facts and the present situation in order to consider any realistic policy toward Russia. And in order to affirm Japan’s international position that Japan will protect its national interests from now on and will not allow Russia to commit any further oppressive acts, it is our country’s duty to inform the international community of the violation of other countries’ sovereignty on the part of Russia. We cannot help but admit that the Japanese government in the postwar years failed to make any serious efforts to convey the historical facts even domestically in Japan.

Speaking of my personal experience, at an elementary school I attended in Nara Prefecture they taught social class using a sub-textbook titled “Living in Nara Prefecture.” I clearly remember that the textbook said, “Totsukawa Village (located in Nara Prefecture) is the largest village in Japan.” Certainly, this description is right in view of the data available then about the ranking of municipal areas. In fact, however, villages like Rubetsu, Shana and Shibetoro in Etorofu Island and Yorubetsu in Kunashiri Island are bigger in area. The author of the textbook may have had no malicious intention, but the fact that textbook publishers continue to use such false description and that public education continues to use such textbooks with wrong information makes me wonder whether similar flawed approach is adequate with respect to the protection of our country’s territories. On the other hand, seen from the Soviet Union/ Russia’s perspective, such passivity may create the impression that Japan has no intention to recover its territories unlawfully occupied by another country. I came to be closely interested in the territorial issue in later years, not through school education or forced hard work for the entrance examination, but through study out of my own interest.

As of the Russian invasion of Ukraine this time, first of all, it is naturally important to stand resolutely with the international community against the violent and lawless Russian invasion. Essentially, now that Russia is in a predicament due to difficulties in winning the war and it spends huge amounts of resources in military actions, it is a good opportunity for Japan to retrieve its Northern Territories and the Kuril Islands or at least to lay the foundation for the retrieve. This may sound a little bit indiscreet. However, have peaceful measures taken at peaceful times been ever successful in moving forward the process of retrieving our land so far? Of course, the Japanese Government is not solely to blame for the failure due to its tactlessness, but another big issue is also general public’s lack of awareness or historical recognition of the situation. I do not totally deny the importance of economic aid and human exchanges. However, after all those ineffective efforts on the part of Japan, for nearly eighty years, part of Japan has been lost. Japan must be determined, once and for all, to change its thinking and tactics.

And one more thing to worry about is that there are those who loudly speak for Russia among conservatives, yet they should raise their voices to defend the national interests. In other words, some argue that President Biden is to blame for the outbreak of the Ukrainian War, criticizing political corruption and diplomatic blunders on the part of Ukraine, while putting President Putin’s aggressive acts in relative perspective. In such arguments, actors like American Deep State (Dark Government) appear often and some even seem to collaborate with speakers who usually regard prewar Japan as “evil.” Of course, such arguments did not suddenly appear last year, but there had been already prototypical believers, saying “To criticize Russia over the Northern Territories issue is exactly what the United States wants, trying to prevent Russo-Japanese cooperation.” However, I cannot help but wonder if such argument is beneficial to Japan’s national interest or it can be helpful in promoting the retrieve of the Northern Territories.

I am not pro-America at all. When I was in elementary school, I was taught by a private tutor that “the attack on Pearl Harbor might have been a plot by the United States.” Around that time, I witnessed with my own eyes incidents of the U.S. pressure on its free importing issue. Ever since then, I have been sheerly doubtful about the United States policies. And at the International Military Tribunal for Far East a.k.a. Tokyo Trials led by the United States (although it was partly influenced by a non-dominant faction of the US), many innocent Japanese were executed, which I can never forgive emotionally.

I cannot agree with either the idea of vindicating Russia or the “Deep State” theory. There is no definite proof that “it was entirely the doing of the Biden Administration from scratch,” and I don’t think it is good for the Japanese to believe such a story. As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe in the United States, but I do feel it necessary for Japan to do the minimal duty when it comes to the U.S.-Japan alliance. If not, no decent country would agree to build an alliance with Japan. Of course, through such a process (including international intelligence war), it is necessary to obtain the support of the international opinion, and there is no probability that sympathizing with Putin as things are now should lead to it.

In the modern history of our country, there always has been temptation toward an “anti-American” impulse, especially after the Soviet Union was established through the Russian Revolution. The Soviet Union and the communist power, which were the true enemies of Japan, conspired to alienate Japan from the United States for their own survival. It worked, up until the conclusion of the Anti-Comintern Pact between Japan, Germany and Italy (1937), but after signing the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan plus the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact (1941), the policy against communism was practically abandoned. The failure of the Japanese diplomacy at that time was not militarism but that Japan entered the war against the United States and Britain at the most suitable timing and following the most suitable composition for the Soviet Union, believing in the Soviet Union, a communist state. Consequently, the neutrality pact with Japan was abandoned by the Soviet Union, whom Japan expected to become arbitrator immediately before the end of the war, instead, it invaded Japanese territories without any provocation. And the Soviet aggression continued after the war officially ended. Thus, Japan’s Northern Territories remain unreturned at present. Japan of the Reiwa era must not forget the history of bitter betrayal by the Soviet Union. The issue of returning Japanese territories unlawfully occupied by Soviet Union must not be slighted. After the Greater East Asian War ended, the unit under the command of Higuchi Kiichiro of the Fifth Area Army courageously fought against the dominant Russian Army in Shumushu Island in the northernmost end of the Kuril Islands and all the surviving officers and soldiers were harshly detained in Siberia and thus saved Hokkaido through their courage and sacrifice. Japan must not nullify their gallant fight and sacrificial efforts. In the advent of the tragic invasion of Ukraine, although I am not at all hoping the conflict to last much longer nor victims’ number to further increase, we must do all that we can to solve the territorial issue, which still has not been resolved. This attempt is not Japan’s ill-willed revenge against the unlawful invasion of the Soviet Union committed 78 years ago, taking advantage of Japan’s worst predicament at that time. This is a good opportunity for Japan to make Russia, which has been historically menacing peace and to which the right opinion of the international community seems to mean nothing, recognize the right opinion, based on history, in cooperation with other countries concerned. The Japanese Government should appeal to the world for the solution of the urgent issue of returning the Japanese Northern Territories, explaining how it happened in the first place, following the Ukraine problem.