The Repentance Dilemma: Modern Japan and WWII

On the eve of the 70th anniversary of Victory Day, people tend to recall the invaluable contribution the allied countries made in putting an end to the most atrocious war in modern history of mankind. However, those on the other side also deserve attention. RIAC has approached key foreign policy experts to share their views on how the countries in the former Axis alliance (headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan) view the end of the Second World War. Japan’s role still evokes painful debates among the country's population and political elites. Here are the comments by Ambassador Alexander Panov, and RIAC expert Dmitry Streltsov.

On the eve of the 70th anniversary of Victory Day, people tend to recall the invaluable contribution the allied countries made in putting an end to the most atrocious war in modern history of mankind. However, those on the other side also deserve attention. RIAC has approached key foreign policy experts to share their views on how the countries in the former Axis alliance (headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan) view the end of the Second World War. Japan’s role still evokes painful debates among the country's population and political elites. Here are the comments by Ambassador Alexander Panov, Chief Researcher at RAS Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies, Head of Diplomacy Chair at MGIMO-University and RIAC Member, and RIAC expert Dmitry Streltsov, Doctor of History, Head of Oriental Studies Chair at MGIMO-University.

Alexander Panov: There is a lot of ambiguity in Japanese assessments of WWII, with their distinct division into two categories. One is related to Japan's campaign of aggression against China, Southeast Asian states and the United States, while the other deals with the Soviet Union. The Japanese have long been united in their vision of this first, and have a different view from that of the Pacific nations. As far as the USSR is concerned, they believe that Moscow violated the five-year-long neutrality pact of April 13 1945 and joined the action when Japan was virtually on the verge of capitulation, just to obtain the Kuril Islands, which are seen by Tokyo as Japanese territory.

The Japanese are also quite unhappy about the defeat of the Qwantong Army that resulted in 600,000 POWs later being taken to Siberian camps, where over 60,000 of them died in the harsh environment.

Alexander Panov

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe officially refused to participate in Russia’s May 9 events in Moscow. However, the reason is hardly due to the war itself, and is more an expression of solidarity with Western leaders who boycott Moscow over Ukraine. In fact, Prime Minister Koizumi attended the military parade in Moscow 10 years ago.

Japanese attitudes about their own aggressiveness are even more ambivalent. On the one hand, since the war’s end they have insisted their actions contained neither aggression nor colonialism. It was, they claim, self-defense and the liberation of Southeast Asia from Western colonialists. Further, they will not admit to many of their atrocities against the Chinese and Koreans. There have been top-level statements, including from Abe, about the absence of a clear-cut definition of aggression in international law, as the interpretation depends on which country is in the dock.

The International Tokyo Tribunal was the trial held by the victors, and delivered a victors’ verdict. But Beijing keeps mentioning the 35 million Chinese killed during the Nanking Massacre. Japan questions the fact and for a long time refrained from accepting guilt and issuing an apology. It was only in 1995, 50 years after the end of WWII, that Socialist Prime Minister Maruyama made a statement to apologize to the Asian nations for colonial rule and aggression, while at the 60th anniversary, an apology came from Liberal Democrat Koizumi.

According to media reports, Abe is just pondering the benefits of issuing an apology, while at an Asian-African conference in Bandung he only expressed deep regret for what Japan did. This approach was not well received in the Asia-Pacific, especially in China and Korea, which maintain that a common future is impossible until Japan fully admits its guilt. The United States also urges Japan’s leaders to say sorry and turn over a new leaf. On April 28, Abe came to Washington on an official visit to see President Obama and address Congress.

Notably, former Prime Minister Kishi, Mr. Abe's grandfather, used to say that World War II was a sacrosanct experience and Japan had done nothing worth an apology. Quite a potent Japanese political school takes the view that all sides are to blame for the atrocities. Americans mass murdered the Japanese, A-bombed the country, and burnt down Tokyo and many other cities. According to polls, 50 percent of the Japanese support the idea of an official apology, while 35 percent reject the idea.

Dmitry Streltsov

Dmitry Streltsov: The end of the war for Japan is a milestone that signifies the transition to peaceful development, which at the same time brings up extremely somber associations. The postwar generation grew up in democratic traditions shaped to a great extent by the Constitution and in particular Article Nine. However, the country has a different view on the date on which the war ended, recognizing this as August 15, when the Emperor addressed the nation by radio announcing the termination of the war (while others view it as September 4).

As for any assessment of the war’s outcomes, today’s Japanese people are confident that repentance is a matter of the distant past since today’s generation cannot be held responsible. This approach definitely impacts Tokyo's attitude to WWII. On the one hand, it is about acknowledging past mistakes, while on the other, in response to demands of more apologies, Japanese leaders state that enough has been done in this vein and relations should be built from scratch – all should draw a line under the war because today’s Japan has nothing to do with prewar Japan.

Then comes the issue of placing the issue of the war in the foreign policy arena. Some states put pressure on Tokyo insisting on its liability and insufficient punishment for massacres and violence, especially as many war criminals have been recently set free. Japan fights back, arguing it is a country that has already expiated its fault.

Interviewer: Maria Gurova, RIAC Website Editor