Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2643
Yamagami Shingo
Counselor
International Research Instutitute of Controversial Histories
In books like The Rape of Nanking (1996), written by Iris Chang, and Japan’s Holocaust (2024), written by Bryan Mark Rigg, among those Americans who strongly accuse Japan over war-time history issues, there is a tendency toward discussing the war and post-war settlement in terms of comparison with Nazi Germany.
This is affected by the fact that the post-war settlement started with the Nuremberg trials attempting to condemn Nazis and the Tokyo trials to condemn “militarists.”
Based on the fact that the war was mainly fought between the Axis Powers and the Allied Powers, it is understandable that the Allied Powers prefer to discuss Japan and Germany in the same basket. However, the respective strategic environments and goals to be achieved widely differed.
It was well known that, even under the tripartite pact among Japan, Germany, and Italy, there was hardly any cooperation among the three countries in waging war. Some point out that if the Japanese Army had not attacked Pearl Harbor but advanced to the Malay Peninsula and Singapore and then attacked India from behind, the British Empire would have collapsed. There was no such co-operation between Germany and Japan. Faced with the British's resilient resistance in the Battle of Britain, Hitler changed his course toward the Soviet Union. However, there was no joint operation to sandwich the Soviet Union conducted by Germany and Japan.
Japan at that time did not adopt the northward advance plan that the Soviet Union feared, but instead took the southward advance plan and declared war on the United States, while Germany tried to avoid entering such a war. The way the war developed tells us that the Japan-Germany alliance was a mere “marriage of convenience.”
Moreover, it must be noted that in the background of Japan’s difficult battle on the Chinese front, a group of German military advisors helped the Republic of China to strengthen the defense in Shanghai and Nanjing and enabled the Chinese military to strongly fight back against Japan.
The difference of actions between Japan and Germany
The most important difference was what Japan and Germany did.
In the case of Germany, the issue confronting them was the act of killing systematically and in a planned manner 6 million Jewish people in a peaceful backyard far from the war front. Imperial Japan did not join the anti-Semitism. Japan has never attempted to annihilate a particular people, whether Chinese or Koreans, let alone Jews.
For instance, in 1940, the Japanese consul Sugihara Chiune, stationed in Lithuania, kept issuing transit visas to Jews who were fleeing from the Nazi persecution so that they could pass through Japan, Thus, several thousand Jews were able to flee to safe places in the United States, Australia and elsewhere via Japan, through his devoted efforts, which was called “Visa for Life.” The descendants of the saved Jews are said to amount to a hundred thousand. Owing to this remarkable humanistic achievement, Sugihara was honored as “Righteous Among the Nations” by the Israeli government. He was the only honoree among the Japanese people. Army Major General (later Lieutenant General) Higuchi Kiichiro, Chief of Harbin Army Special Unit, built the “Higuchi route,” enabling Jews rushing to the Manchurian border fleeing from Europe to pass through Manchuria and escape to safe places.
Activities regarding postwar settlements
In the case of Germany, because of the special situation in which the country was divided into eastern and western states for a long time, Germany could not conclude a peace treaty as Japan did. Under the unstable conditions, not knowing when the national division could end, Germany has been making a huge number of payments in the form of individual compensation for the victims of Nazi persecution. Nazi criminal acts, mainly the Holocaust, had been systematically committed before World War II started, and most of the victims were civilians under German rule and occupation. It was an anti-humanistic crime, different from the usual war crimes. Incidentally, in the Tokyo trials, there were no defendants charged with the “crime against humanity.”
On the other hand, since there has been no compensation by the state, Poland, for example, has been demanding compensation from Germany even today.
As for Japan, following the system of post-war settlement widely accepted by the international community, Japan concluded the San Francisco Peace Treaty with the United States and other Allied Powers, bilateral peace and relevant treaties with each of the other countries concerned, conclusively settling the issues of World-War II related compensation, property and claims among the countries.
Among the actions taken based on treaties and other agreements, there were the abandonment of territories such as the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, and the Kuril Islands, as well as overseas properties owned by Japan. The total sum is estimated to be 20 to 30 billion dollars at the then value. In addition, for compensation and economic cooperation, nearly 950 billion yen was provided, most of which was paid in the 1950s and 60s, and the problems concerning compensation, property, and claims have been legally resolved.
Although at that time the values of the yen and dollar were different and Japan’s economic power was small, Japan did its best under the economic and financial environment Japan was in at that time as faithfully as possible. For example, as compensation to the Philippines, where the fiercest battles were fought between Japan and the United States, 550 million dollars were paid based on the agreement concluded in 1956. Supposedly, this sum was equivalent to 58.5% of Japan’s foreign currency reserve at that time and 18.2% of the annual national budget.
Apologies
The criticism that “Germany apologized, but Japan did not” is a cliché used by the Chinese Communist Party in brandishing the historical card. Facts clearly show that such criticism is a unilateral “postwar propaganda” closely resembling the war propaganda in the past.
In Germany, President Weizsacker stated to the following in his famous speech in 1985:
”There is no such thing as the guilt or innocence of an entire nation. Guilt is, like innocence, not collective, but personal.” On the other hand, the Germans are “responsible for historical consequence,” and “All of us, whether guilty or not, whether old or young, must accept the past. We are all affected by its consequence and liable for it.” This is an essentially historical view rooted in the Christian tradition. And in his speech, the President emphasized that as a way of fulfilling the “responsibility,” the Germans accept the past and never forget it.
Another famous speech was made by German President Roman Herzog during the ceremony of the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising held in 1994: “I bow my head to those people who rose and fought in Warsaw and to all the Polish victims of the war. I ask for forgiveness for what has been done to you by Germans.” In the speech in German, he used the word “bitten um Vergebung, ”meaning to beg someone for pardon, not “Entschuldigung,” which is usually used to express apology. From the standpoint of denying the “ collective guilt” committed by the German people, the former expression can be said to be logically inevitable. In gist, German logic differs from Japanese logic, and a simple comparison cannot be made.
As for Japan, on various occasions, more straightforward self-reflection and a sense of apology have been expressed. The typical example is the Prime Minister’s statement made on August 15, 1995. In the so-called “Murayama statement,” it was said, "During a certian period in the not too distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. I express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology.”
This is, by far, a direct apology.
Conclusion
In historical controversies, the comparison between Japan and Germany has often been employed. It cannot be denied that Japan has been very cautious in explaining Japan’s past in comparison with Germany, out of consideration for the friendly state, with whom Japan shares fundamental values.
In addition, while in Germany, there is a trend to attribute the responsibility (“the guilt”) to a group called Nazis, in Japan, one must not forget that the intellectual honesty of the Japanese has refrained them from conclusively attributing the responsibility to a group of militarists, such as Class A war criminals, by joining the “dichotomy” between those guilty and those innocent.
I hope the above summary of arguments is helpful in some way.