Author: Hiromichi Moteki

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!     

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=950

Moteki Hiromichi

Senior researcher

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)

November , 2022

1. Ukraine war: a war between globalism and nationalism?

As Fujiwara Masahiko says in his book Nihonjin no Shinka (True Value of the Japanese) (Bunshun Shinsho 2020) that “it is hard to believe that aggression as blatant as the Russian invasion of Ukraine takes place in the 21st century Europe,” many are surprised at how history has gone backwards by one century, so to speak.

However, some seem to support the view that this is a war of nationalism against globalism. Apparently, they see it as a confrontation of the Russian nationalism against American globalism led by the DS (deep state) but this raises a question of where Ukraine, the leading player, comes in. Do they mean that Ukraine is a voice of globalism supported by the US?

It is an outrageous idea to make light of the Ukrainians. Are they saying that Ukraine, fighting bravely and squarely against an all-out attack from Russia, which boasts overwhelming military power, are fighting for the US? I feel inclined to wonder if they are thinking of the Ukrainians as fools committing their lives to the US. Certainly, it is thanks to the enormous arms support from the US and other countries of the Western bloc that they have been able to repulse the main forces of the 200,000 Russian troops, protect the capital Kyiv, strike a blow at the Russian troops in the eastern and southern regions and recover lost territory. Who expected a wretched debacle of the Russian tank force of over 1,000 vehicles? No matter how much military aid is offered, fighting such fierce battles would be absolutely impossible without the determination to fight of the people who love and commit their lives to their country. Look at Afghanistan. They got themselves into such a mess despite the US troops that had joined them in addition to the arms support.

If the present war is a heroic war of nationalist Ukraine, what about Russia? Russia expressed as pretexts for invasion of Ukraine what can never suffice as reasons for all-out invasion, such as the “threat of neo-Nazism” and the issue of accession to the NATO but the true reason is Great Russianism: It is an all-out invasion aimed at the realization of Great Russia.

On February 26, in the initial period after the start of the war, RIA Novosti, a Russian state-owned news agency, said in an article under the title of “The advent of Russian new world”:

“Russia is restoring its historical fullness, bringing together the Russian world and the Russian people, namely the Great Russians (Russia), White Russians (Belarus) and Little Russians (Ukraine). If we had abandoned this and allowed the temporary division to take hold, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants for allowing the disintegration of the Russian land.”

It means that the Russian nationalist sense of mission was at the root of the invasion of Ukraine. However, this nationalism totally ignores the sovereignty of Little Russia, which is a sovereign country, and the will of the Ukrainians and one-sidedly forces Russia’s own nationalism. They do not hesitate to use armed force for that purpose. It is an extremely malicious and dangerous idea.

The “globalism” called the Great Russianism has now begun to claim that Russia has a right of possession even of Japan’s Hokkaido on the grounds of the Ainu issue (Deputy of the State Duma has stated openly that “Russia has all rights to Hokkaido.” The Sankei Shimbun June 11, 2020)

As Yoram Hazony discusses in his book The Virtue of Nationalism (Japanese version translated by Nakano Takeshi and Se Teruhisa, Toyo Keizai 2021), Nazism was not confined to nationalism but “transformed into globalism that takes on the nature of imperialism and forces own principles and culture on other countries.”

Just like this, the Great Russianism should be regarded as globalism clothed in nationalism. That is, the present war is more accurately a war of the Great Russianist globalism, rather than Russian nationalism, versus Ukrainian nationalism.

2. Threat of neo-Nazism: a complete lie

As a reason for starting a war, Russia put the main emphasis on the threat of neo-Nazism such as the Azov Regiment confronting the pro-Russian faction in Ukraine.

From 1932 to 1933 in the Soviet Union era, Ukraine was hit by a great famine. It was a tragic incident that caused starvation of 3.3 or even more millions of people but it was due more to the Communist Party’s self-justified authoritarianism than to the weather, as it was depicted in the famous movie Mr. Jones. This inevitably raised strong anti-Soviet emotions among Ukrainian nationalists and Ukrainian people. Therefore, when the German troops made inroads into Ukraine, many Ukrainians cooperated with the German troops. Against this backdrop, it should be natural that people like the Azov Regiment came into existence. In the present Ukraine, however, neither are the Azov Regiment’s illegal attacks against Russian residents officially approved nor are anti-Russian revanchist policies taken by the Ukrainian government. On the contrary, Russia has sent the Wagner Group’s unit of 8,000 mercenaries to the eastern part of Ukraine since 2014. Russia has long been engaged in acts of aggression. They are absolutely unqualified to mention neo-Nazism. Needless to add, it can never be a pretext for all-out invasion of Ukraine.

As another reason for starting the war, Russia mentions the threat of NATO. They claim that Ukraine’s refusal to give up joining NATO is a threat to Russia.

NATO has expanded and is still expanding. However, NATO has never waged war of aggression against any sovereign nation. The expansion of NATO is an increase of member states for avoiding the threat of an aggressive big power called Russia and not one country intends to join NATO to invade Russia. In response to Russia’s current act of violence reminiscent of the 20th century, Sweden and Finland, which traditionally took a neutrality policy, officially applied for the accession to NATO. This means that the reason for starting the war mentioned by Russia has produced a reverse effect.

That is, the reason for starting the war associated with neo-Nazism or with NATO can never be sufficient for providing justification for Russia’s one-sided all-out invasion.

3. Incorrect allegation over historical perception that the Pearl Harbor attack has something in common with Russia’s all-out invasion

President Zelenskyy of Ukraine spoke along the following lines in his online speech made to the US Congress on March 16:

Remember Pearl Harbor, the terrible morning of December 7, 1941, when your sky was black from the planes attacking you.

This is an absurd, incorrect perception. Very regrettably, however, a view that the Pearl Harbor attack is Japan’s one-sided act of aggression is mostly shared around the world in reality. Having said that, the “aggressor Japan” view is a total “fallacy,” as discussed by Henry Stokes, former Tokyo bureau chief for The New York Times, in his book Fallacies in the Allied Nations' Historical Perception as Observed by a British Journalist (Hamilton Books, New York, 2017).

What should be confirmed first is the fact that Russia, whose existence was not in a critical situation, waged total aggression against Ukraine, a minor power, resulting in the present Russian invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, they are outrageous enough to declare a nuclear threat.

It is true that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike, but the situation was totally different from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Japan was faced with a genuine life-or-death crisis for the nation.

In July 1939, the US one-sidedly announced its abrogation of the US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. It was “all the more serious because the denouncing of a commercial treaty for political reasons is almost unheard of in American diplomatic history,” as an article in the July 28, 1939, edition of The Manchester Guardian stated, and virtually a quasi-declaration of war. It gave the US the power to begin restricting exports to Japan six months later and the US started to restrict the export of scrap iron, alloys, refined steel, steel products, machines, etc., which at last led to the total embargo of oil in August 1941. Japan, whose oil supplies depended 90% on import, lost its sources of oil and was driven to the critical point of survival as a modern state because the Netherlands followed in the footsteps of the US to restrict exports. The situation was just the opposite of how Russia is conversely making use of oil as a strategic material to the West and using its export as a threat.

An economic blockade is warfare, as US Secretary of State Kellogg said on December 8, 1928, in the hearing for the ratification of the Pact of Paris proposed by himself, when he stated that an economic blockade is “An act of war, absolutely!” responding to a question from a senator. That is, the one that first committed an act of war called an economic blockade against Japan was none other than the US.

In addition, the US formulated an operation plan (JB355) to bomb the mainland Japan using long-range bombers, which was signed for approval by President Roosevelt on July 23, 1941. (The signed document has been published in the US National Archives.) It was four and a half months before the Pearl Harbor attack.

The Japanese government had been continuously negotiating to avoid conflict with the US but the Hull note, which was virtually an ultimatum to it, was submitted on November 26. Its content brought the results of negotiations up to then to almost nothing. Hamilton Fish, the Republican leader who approved of the declaration of war, made severe criticism after the war that none of the congress members was informed of the Hull note and said that it was wrong of himself to ask for the declaration without the knowledge of it.

While the US was already engaged in a virtual act of war by the economic blockade, Japan was seeking an avenue to reconciliation. For Japan, the loss of the possibility of reconciliation meant that there was no other way left but to take measures for self-defense. Japan had the right to use self-defense measures. Then, it decided to use self-defense measures, which was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a response to a threat to their existence or use of the right of self-defense. President Zelenskyy and other people around the world should know that there is nothing similar about it to the Pearl Harbor attack. Very regrettably, the reality is that the view on the Pearl Harbor attack as Japan’s one-sided act of aggression is still mostly shared around the world. It is a perception that must be corrected.