Yasukuni Shrine and Double Standards
The Comparison with Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington National Cemetery contains:
- Confederate generals from the Civil War (who fought to preserve slavery)
- Military personnel involved in civilian massacres in the Vietnam War
- Military personnel involved in atomic bombings
- War dead from wars of questionable legality under international law, such as the Iraq War
However:
- No one criticizes when heads of state from various countries lay wreaths there
- It is not called “war glorification”
- It is normally accepted as “respect for war dead”
Why only Yasukuni Shrine is problematized:
- Political pressure from China and South Korea
- Western misunderstanding (or tacit acceptance of double standards)
- Insufficient explanation from the Japanese side
The Issue of Class-A War Criminals
1. Sentences Were Served, Debts Were Paid
- Those executed as Class-A war criminals received their sentences and had them carried out
- Under the principle of the rule of law, once a sentence is served, the debt to society is paid
- Treating them as “eternal criminals” is legally problematic
2. Treatment Under the San Francisco Peace Treaty
- In 1952, Japan regained sovereignty
- The Diet passed resolutions for pardon and sentence reduction of war criminals
- Allied nations raised no objections
- Internationally, they were in a “pardoned” state
3. Legal Problems with the Tokyo Trials
- “Crimes against peace” was ex post facto law (retroactive punishment)
- One-sided trial by the victors
- Allied war crimes such as atomic bombings were not prosecuted
- Legal legitimacy remains debatable
The Difference from Class-C War Criminals
This is an extremely important point:
Class-A War Criminals (Crimes Against Peace):
- Political responsibility for starting the war
- Not direct acts of brutality
- Responsibility for policy decisions
Class-C War Criminals (Crimes Against Humanity):
- Direct atrocities such as prisoner abuse and civilian massacres
- These are the real “war crimes”
- However, the enshrinement of Class-C war criminals is rarely problematized
The Absurdity of This Reversal:
- Class-A war criminals (political responsibility) = treated as a major issue
- Class-C war criminals (actual atrocities) = rarely discussed
This aligns with the political intentions of China and South Korea (to eternally vilify Japan’s political leadership).
Examples of International Double Standards
Treatment of “War Criminals” in Other Countries:
- Mao Zedong: Portrait in Tiananmen Square, despite being responsible for mass killings
- Stalin: Movement to rehabilitate him in Russia, despite being responsible for the Great Purge
- Truman: Made the decision to drop atomic bombs, yet not considered a war criminal
- Leopold II (Belgium): Killed 10 million in the Congo; statues stood until recently
Yet only Japan:
- Simply commemorating war criminals who have already served their sentences is called “war glorification”
- Honoring all war dead is labeled “revival of militarism”
The Essence of the Yasukuni Issue
- Honoring war dead is a universal practice
- Every nation honors its war dead
- This is not called “war glorification” elsewhere
- The Problem with Separation Arguments
- Separation is difficult under Shinto doctrine
- These are people who have already served their sentences and been pardoned
- Politicization as a Tool
- China did not problematize Yasukuni visits until 1985
- It suddenly became an issue for political reasons
- Used as a tool to inflame domestic anti-Japanese sentiment
Conclusion on Double Standards
The double standards are clear:
- The double standard between Arlington Cemetery and Yasukuni is obvious
- Class-A war criminals have served their sentences and legally paid their debt
- Class-C war criminals are morally more problematic yet are not discussed
- Honoring war dead and glorifying war are separate matters yet are intentionally conflated
This is being used not as a historical issue but as a tool for current political Japan-bashing.
While gaining international understanding is difficult, at least logically and legally, Japan’s position can be sufficiently justified. The problem is the ineffective communication of this position.
Why Are China and South Korea So Critical of Japan? The Taiwan Comparison
Why Taiwan Is Pro-Japan
1. Differences in Governing Experience
- Japanese rule: 1895-1945 (50 years)
- Infrastructure development, educational expansion, establishment of rule of law
- Relatively stable governance
2. Subsequent Experiences
- KMT’s “White Terror” (1947 February 28 Incident, etc.)
- Dictatorial rule under martial law
- Memory that “the Japanese period was better” compared to KMT rule
3. Political Factors
- Due to conflict with China, friendship with Japan is strategically important
- After democratization, an environment where Japanese rule can be objectively evaluated
Why South Korea Is Anti-Japan
Not historical factors, but post-war political factors are primary:
1. Syngman Rhee’s Anti-Japanese Policy (Founding Ideology)
- At the time of founding (1948), the country was divided
- Many pro-Japanese collaborators existed; legitimacy was weak
- “Anti-Japan” was used as an ideology for national integration
- Fictional history of “winning independence by fighting Japan”
2. Deflection of Domestic Problems
- When economic or political failures occur, anti-Japanese sentiment is stirred up
- Deflects attention from domestic atrocities like Jeju massacres and Bodo League incident
- Securing legitimacy for military dictatorships
3. Nationalist Education
- Culture of “han” (resentment)
- Emphasis on victimhood
- Reproduction of anti-Japanese sentiment across generations
4. Paradox After Democratization
- Anti-Japanese sentiment intensified further after democratization (post-1987)
- The value that “anti-Japan = justice” became established
- Pro-Japanese statements lead to social ostracism
Why China Is Anti-Japanese
1. The Communist Party’s Legitimacy Problem
- It was mainly the KMT that actually fought Japan
- “Victory in the War of Resistance” is the basis of Communist Party legitimacy
- Anti-Japanese sentiment is necessary to maintain this myth
2. Patriotic Education After Tiananmen (from 1990s)
- Loss of trust in the Communist Party after the 1989 Tiananmen Incident
- Strengthened patriotic education (essentially anti-Japanese education)
- Directing public discontent toward Japan
3. Tool for Domestic Control
- When economic problems or political discontent rise, anti-Japanese sentiment is stirred
- Uniting the people through nationalism
- Anti-Japanese demonstrations in 2005, 2012, etc.
4. Geopolitical Rivalry
- Competition for Asian hegemony
- Check against the Japan-US alliance
- Using historical issues as diplomatic cards
The Decisive Difference: Comparison with Taiwan
| Factor | Taiwan | South Korea | China |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experience after Japanese rule | KMT dictatorship, White Terror | Rhee dictatorship, massacres | Civil war, Cultural Revolution |
| Relative evaluation of Japanese rule | Better than what followed | Taught as negative | Taught as negative |
| Legitimacy of founding | Succession of ROC | Anti-Japanese independence struggle (fiction) | Victory in War of Resistance (exaggerated) |
| Political system | Democratization allows objective evaluation | Anti-Japan continues after democratization | Dictatorship continues anti-Japanese education |
| Strategy toward Japan | Friendship serves national interest | Anti-Japan necessary for domestic integration | Anti-Japan serves as diplomatic card |
About the Mongol Invasions and Toyotomi Hideyoshi
- These are taught in South Korea but are not the main cause of modern anti-Japanese sentiment
- Rather, they serve as reinforcement for the narrative that “Japan has always been an aggressor”
- The essence lies in modern political necessity
Conclusion
Anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea and China is not rooted in ancient historical grudges but was created from post-war political necessity:
- South Korea: For national integration and regime legitimacy
- China: For maintaining Communist Party legitimacy and domestic control
Taiwan’s pro-Japanese stance is not simply because Japanese rule was good, but because subsequent KMT rule was terrible, and there was no need to politically exploit anti-Japanese sentiment.
Ironically, Taiwan, which experienced longer and deeper Japanese involvement, is more pro-Japanese, while South Korea, with shorter colonial rule, is more anti-Japanese. This reversal demonstrates not how history itself matters, but how post-war politics shapes historical perception. This is an excellent example of that phenomenon.
Note: This analysis is based on comparing factual historical practices and political strategies. The purpose is to objectively examine how different nations use historical narratives for contemporary political purposes.