So the next time you have the opportunity to travel to Hawaii and you visit Pearl Harbor and the USS ARIZONA Memorial, remember whose fault it was. NO, not Tojo and Yamamoto.......it was all the United States and its misguided leadership under FDR. Shocking as that statement and the title of this blog may seem, it serves to illustrate a point that is often overlooked. History is many different things to many different people, however there are some things that history is not, namely black and white, good versus evil. Instead it is a variation of a million shades of gray.
The impetus of this post was my recent trip to the Yasukuni Shrine and museum. It was my second trip, and like the first, it proved to be an enlightening view on how the Japanese understand the history of WWII. For those who don't know, Yasukuni Jinga is a major Shinto shrine located in central Tokyo. Unlike other Shinto Shrines, it is dedicated to the spirits of all the Soldiers, Sailors, and Airman who died in the service of Japan and the Emperor. It is essentially the Japanese equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery. Most shrines are considered the home of a particular spirit or "Kami", and as such, the men and women enshrined at Yakakuni are considered to be a "Kami'". A "Kami" can be roughly translated as either divine, a divine spirit, or divine entity, however this is a bit of a misnomer as it really has no clear cut comparison from a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish framework. The shrine is also considered to be a political flashpoint for nations such as China and the Korea's since Japan has enshrined all of the men/women who have died in the service of the nation...to include those convicted and executed as war criminals after WWII.
Controversy aside, the accompanying museum highlights the military history of Japan from feudal times through to the end of WWII. Each section has at least one or two signs in English which describe the major theme of the display, while artifacts are commented on in Japanese. Luckily, I know just enough about their history to know what Im looking at and what is being conveyed. Most of the displays are fairly balanced in terms of the Western view of the same time period, that is until you get to the 1930s. China is where things get a little, shall we say, glossy. For instance, when you read any western work on the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, you are sure to find at least a chapter describing the atrocities committed during the taking of Nanking, more commonly known as the "rape of Nanking". However, at Yasukuni, Nanking is not much more than a footnote. They took it after a brief struggle...nothing more. Again, the need to save face rears its head, and those events which would make one look bad should be skimmed over if not outright omitted. I would go on about this section, however that would constitute writing a book, so on to Pearl Harbor.
This section begins with a timeline (with each event in english) describing the diplomatic, economic, and world events that took place between January-December 1941. What this timeline makes clear is that Japan was trying its best to restore the rule of Asia back to Asians and that their expansion was simply an attempt to bring stability to the vacuum of authority left when a colonial power departed. The timeline says as much with regards to the invasion of French-Indo China (Vietnam). They were just spreading freedom....which sounds somewhat familiar, but I digress. Anyway, the US wasn't going to stand for this and began slapping embargoes on Japan, which threatened their capacity to continue the liberation of Asia. What was worse, it threatened the very economic life of the Empire. No matter how much they pleaded with that mad man FDR, he wasn't going to relent unless Japan did as he dictated. Thus Japan was left with no choice....with its economic survival threatened by the US, their commitment to ousting colonial rule in Asia, and the unwillingness of Britain and the US to see the situation from their point of view, what could Japan do? They would have to take the resources of the Dutch East Indies, but to do so would risk war with the US and Britain. While most Japanese agreed that their superior spirit would win the day, there were a few who knew that such a conflict would be an enormous gamble.
The solution to this conundrum? Strike first and strike hard. Crush the US Pacific Fleet at its base in Pearl Harbor and the US Army in the Philippines would be isolated. Once the Philippines were taken, there would be nothing to stop the Empire from steamrolling south into the Dutch East Indies, the Malaysian peninsula, Singapore and so on. The colonial powers of the Dutch and British would be ousted, freedom restored to those areas, a vast new pool of resources would be available to the Empire, and the crippled US would be unable to do anything about it. Once their gains were consolidated and a defensive parameter established, then Japan would be able to negotiate a peace with the US from a position of strength and the tables would be turned. Now FDR would have to listen because his economic bag of tricks would be empty and his Pacific fleet and army smashed. Of course, none of this need have happened had FDR not interfered with Japan in the first place. Had he listened to reason, there would be no attack on Pearl Harbor.
All this sounds like revisionist history, but this is how the Japanese thought at the time, and this is how it is portrayed by the nations premiere military history museum. Of course, our point of view is 180 out. We were trying to stop Japanese aggression and atrocities and sought to do so by non-military means. However, instead of choosing to solve things in a peaceful manner, Japan started a war by launching a "sneak attack" at Pearl. Most Americans would see the Yasukuni version of WWII as utter nonsense. Nothing more that the losing side trying to rationalize their actions, while "We" know the truth of the matter.....or do we? Ask someone from South Carolina about that war that occurred in the US between 1861-1865 and then ask someone from New York about it. I suspect that the only thing they will agree upon is the fact that a war took place on the North American Continent between 1861-1865. 150 years on, and we still cannot agree on the name of the battles that took place: was it Shiloh or Pittsburgh Landing? Sharpsburg or Antietam? Bull Run or Manassas? While we are at it, what about those 19th Century Indian Wars? Well, they needed to get out of the way of progress and stop attacking settlers along the frontier, but we will skim over that...casting such things as atrocities doesn't reflect too well on us.
So my day with Japan's war dead served to reinforce my believe that there are no definitives in history. One may find some facts, but the truth is elusive. Perhaps this point is best illustrated by Star War's Obi Wan Kenobi (oddly enough a character based on aspects of the Japanese Samurai). When confronted by Luke Skywalker with the revelation that Luke's father, Anakin Skywalker, and Darth Vader are one in the same, Kenobi explains how Anakin Skywalker turned to the dark side and became Darth Vader, thus killing the good man that he knew. His statement is most revealing and relevant to our treatment of history: "So what I have told you is true...from a certain point of view."
No comments:
Post a Comment