[경향신문] 일본 간 메르켈 “과거사 정리가 화해를 위한 전제” 일침
ㆍ아베 총리와 정상회담 후 공동회견… 일본의 역사 직시 촉구
일본을 방문한 앙겔라 메르켈 독일 총리는 9일 “과거사 정리가 (전쟁 가해국과 피해국 사이의) 화해를 위한 전제”라면서 아베 신조(安倍晋三) 일본 총리를 향해 ‘과거사를 직시하라’는 입장을 강조했다.
![]()
7년 만에 일본을 찾은 메르켈 총리는 이날 아베 총리와 정상회담을 한 뒤 공동기자회견에서 “독일에서는 나치가 저지른 무서운 죄악에 대해 어떻게 대응할지에 대한 논의가 있었다”면서 “독일이 2차 세계대전의 과오를 정리할 수 있었기에 훗날 유럽의 통합을 이룰 수 있었다”고 말했다. 이는 독일이 과거 전쟁에서 저지른 잘못을 인정하고 사죄함으로써 주변국과 관계 개선을 이룰 수 있었다는 점을 강조한 것으로 해석된다.
메르켈 총리는 이어 “(유럽의 화해 배경에는) 이웃나라의 관용도 있었다”면서 한국·중국 등 주변국의 태도 변화가 필요하다는 사실도 언급했다. 그러면서 “동아시아에서도 모든 노력을 아끼지 말고, 평화적인 노력을 다해 나갈 필요가 있다”고 밝혔다.
앞서 메르켈 총리는 이날 오전 아사히신문사 강연에서 동아시아 국가들의 관계 개선 및 화해 방안에 대한 질문을 받고 “(유럽에서 화해를 이룰 수 있게 된 것은) 독일이 과거를 정면으로 마주했기 때문”이라며 아베 정권을 향해 “과거 역사를 정면으로 마주하라”고 촉구했다.
메르켈 총리는 또 2011년 3월 후쿠시마(福島)원전 폭발 사고를 계기로 독일이 ‘탈원전’을 선언한 것과 관련, “뛰어난 기술을 갖고 있는 일본에서 사고가 발생하면서 정말로 예상할 수 없는 위험이 있다는 사실을 알게 됐다”고 말했다.
그는 이날 강연에서는 직접 밝히지 않았지만 지난 7일 일본 방문에 앞서 독일 정부 홈페이지에 올린 영상메시지를 통해 “일본과 함께 탈원전의 길을 걸어야 한다고 믿는다”고 밝히는 등 일본의 탈원전 정책을 강하게 촉구한 바 있다.
ㆍ아베 총리와 정상회담 후 공동회견… 일본의 역사 직시 촉구
일본을 방문한 앙겔라 메르켈 독일 총리는 9일 “과거사 정리가 (전쟁 가해국과 피해국 사이의) 화해를 위한 전제”라면서 아베 신조(安倍晋三) 일본 총리를 향해 ‘과거사를 직시하라’는 입장을 강조했다.
7년 만에 일본을 찾은 메르켈 총리는 이날 아베 총리와 정상회담을 한 뒤 공동기자회견에서 “독일에서는 나치가 저지른 무서운 죄악에 대해 어떻게 대응할지에 대한 논의가 있었다”면서 “독일이 2차 세계대전의 과오를 정리할 수 있었기에 훗날 유럽의 통합을 이룰 수 있었다”고 말했다. 이는 독일이 과거 전쟁에서 저지른 잘못을 인정하고 사죄함으로써 주변국과 관계 개선을 이룰 수 있었다는 점을 강조한 것으로 해석된다.
메르켈 총리는 이어 “(유럽의 화해 배경에는) 이웃나라의 관용도 있었다”면서 한국·중국 등 주변국의 태도 변화가 필요하다는 사실도 언급했다. 그러면서 “동아시아에서도 모든 노력을 아끼지 말고, 평화적인 노력을 다해 나갈 필요가 있다”고 밝혔다.
앞서 메르켈 총리는 이날 오전 아사히신문사 강연에서 동아시아 국가들의 관계 개선 및 화해 방안에 대한 질문을 받고 “(유럽에서 화해를 이룰 수 있게 된 것은) 독일이 과거를 정면으로 마주했기 때문”이라며 아베 정권을 향해 “과거 역사를 정면으로 마주하라”고 촉구했다.
메르켈 총리는 또 2011년 3월 후쿠시마(福島)원전 폭발 사고를 계기로 독일이 ‘탈원전’을 선언한 것과 관련, “뛰어난 기술을 갖고 있는 일본에서 사고가 발생하면서 정말로 예상할 수 없는 위험이 있다는 사실을 알게 됐다”고 말했다.
그는 이날 강연에서는 직접 밝히지 않았지만 지난 7일 일본 방문에 앞서 독일 정부 홈페이지에 올린 영상메시지를 통해 “일본과 함께 탈원전의 길을 걸어야 한다고 믿는다”고 밝히는 등 일본의 탈원전 정책을 강하게 촉구한 바 있다.
[경향신문] 독 언론 “메르켈, 일 과거사 문제 우회 지적”
독일 언론들은 9일 앙겔라 메르켈 총리가 독일이 과거사 문제를 청산한 방법을 언급한 것에 대해 “우회적으로 일본 과거사 문제를 지적한 것”이라고 논평했다.
독일 일간 디 벨트는 이날 메르켈 총리의 아사히신문 강연이 끝난 직후 “메르켈 총리는 일본에 과거사를 다루는 방식에 대한 조언을 하지는 않았지만, 그 대신 독일이 이웃 나라들과 화해한 방법에 대해 설명했다”고 논평했다. 프랑크푸르터알게마이네차이퉁은 “메르켈이 동아시아 갈등의 평화적 해결을 촉구했다”고 보도했다.
메르켈 총리가 아사히신문에서 강연하기로 한 것 자체가 과거사 문제를 다루기 위해서였다는 분석도 있다. 일간 쥐트도이체차이퉁은 “아사히신문은 일본이 자국 전쟁범죄를 다루는 방식에 대해 격렬하게 비판해왔던 매체”라고 전했다.
독일 언론들은 메르켈 총리의 방일 전부터 일본 과거사 문제에 큰 관심을 보였다. 쥐트도이체차이퉁은 “일본 정부는 종전 70주년을 맞아 메르켈 총리가 과거사 문제를 꺼낼까봐 우려하고 있다”고 전했다. 도이체벨레와 dpa통신 등도 “아베 정부는 영토문제와 과거사를 두고 한국·중국 등과 불편한 관계를 맺고 있으며, 메르켈 총리가 이에 대해 언급할 것”이라고 전했다.
독일 언론들은 9일 앙겔라 메르켈 총리가 독일이 과거사 문제를 청산한 방법을 언급한 것에 대해 “우회적으로 일본 과거사 문제를 지적한 것”이라고 논평했다.
독일 일간 디 벨트는 이날 메르켈 총리의 아사히신문 강연이 끝난 직후 “메르켈 총리는 일본에 과거사를 다루는 방식에 대한 조언을 하지는 않았지만, 그 대신 독일이 이웃 나라들과 화해한 방법에 대해 설명했다”고 논평했다. 프랑크푸르터알게마이네차이퉁은 “메르켈이 동아시아 갈등의 평화적 해결을 촉구했다”고 보도했다.
메르켈 총리가 아사히신문에서 강연하기로 한 것 자체가 과거사 문제를 다루기 위해서였다는 분석도 있다. 일간 쥐트도이체차이퉁은 “아사히신문은 일본이 자국 전쟁범죄를 다루는 방식에 대해 격렬하게 비판해왔던 매체”라고 전했다.
독일 언론들은 메르켈 총리의 방일 전부터 일본 과거사 문제에 큰 관심을 보였다. 쥐트도이체차이퉁은 “일본 정부는 종전 70주년을 맞아 메르켈 총리가 과거사 문제를 꺼낼까봐 우려하고 있다”고 전했다. 도이체벨레와 dpa통신 등도 “아베 정부는 영토문제와 과거사를 두고 한국·중국 등과 불편한 관계를 맺고 있으며, 메르켈 총리가 이에 대해 언급할 것”이라고 전했다.
[경향신문] 메르켈 “독일은 과거와 정면으로 마주했다”
ㆍ‘반성·사죄→관계개선’ 유럽통합 배경 강조
ㆍ아베 정권, 올해 8월15일 전후 70년 담화 영향 주목
언어는 강했지만 표현은 정중했다. “외교적 예의상 일본에 조언할 위치에 있지 않다”고 했지만 그의 말에는 무게감이 실려 있었다.
일본을 방문하고 있는 앙겔라 메르켈 독일 총리가 9일 “과거사 정리가 (전쟁 가해국과 피해국 사이의) 화해를 위한 전제”라고 함으로써 ‘과거사 부정’ 행보를 계속하고 있는 아베 신조(安倍晋三) 일본 정권에 일침을 가했다. 독일과 일본은 2차 세계대전의 책임 전범국이지만, 독일은 일본과 달리 이웃국가들과 화해하기까지 홀로코스트(유대인 대학살)를 비롯한 자국의 과오를 직시했음을 강조했다.
![]()
메르켈 총리는 앞서 아사히신문사 강연에서도 “(유럽에서 화해를 이룰 수 있게 된 것은) 독일이 과거를 정면으로 마주했기 때문”이라며 아베 정권을 향해 ‘과거사를 직시하라’고 주문했다. 역사인식 갈등을 둘러싸고 가해국 일본과 피해국인 한국, 중국을 사실상 싸잡아 비난한 웬디 셔먼 미 국무부 차관과 달리 가해국이 먼저 해야 할 일을 강조한 것으로도 해석된다.
메르켈의 이런 발언은 전후 세대이면서도 독일의 전쟁범죄에 대해 여러 차례 사죄해온 그동안 역사관과 행보의 연장선상에 있다.
2005년 독일 최초 여성 총리로 취임한 그는 2007년 9월 유엔총회에서 독일의 역사적 과오에 대해 거듭 사과했다. 이듬해 3월에는 이스라엘 의회 연설을 통해 “홀로코스트는 독일인에게 가장 큰 수치”라면서 이스라엘을 포함한 전 세계에 공개적으로 사죄한 바 있다. 또 독일 현직 총리로는 처음으로 2013년 8월 2차 대전 당시의 나치 수용소인 다하우 추모관을 방문, “수감자들의 운명을 떠올리며 깊은 슬픔과 부끄러움을 느낀다”는 연설을 하기도 했다. 그는 진정을 담은 사죄의사를 반복적으로 나타냄으로써 프랑스 등 주변 국가들의 신뢰를 얻었다.
메르켈 총리의 이번 발언은 야스쿠니(靖國)신사 참배 등 과거 역사의 잘못을 부정하는 태도를 지속적으로 보이면서 역사수정주의의 길을 걸어가고 있는 아베 정권에 적잖은 부담이 될 것으로 보인다. 그동안 아베 정권은 ‘독일의 사례를 배우라’는 일본 국내외의 요구를 사실상 무시하는 행보를 보여왔다.
이에 따라 아베 총리가 오는 8월15일 발표할 것으로 예상되는 전후 70년 담화(아베 담화)에 메르켈 총리의 발언이 어느 정도 영향을 끼칠지 주목된다. 최근 아베 총리는 그동안 역대 정권이 담화에 담아왔던 식민지배와 침략에 대한 반성 및 사죄에 관한 표현을 빼려는 움직임을 보이면서 주변국의 우려를 사왔다.
ㆍ‘반성·사죄→관계개선’ 유럽통합 배경 강조
ㆍ아베 정권, 올해 8월15일 전후 70년 담화 영향 주목
언어는 강했지만 표현은 정중했다. “외교적 예의상 일본에 조언할 위치에 있지 않다”고 했지만 그의 말에는 무게감이 실려 있었다.
일본을 방문하고 있는 앙겔라 메르켈 독일 총리가 9일 “과거사 정리가 (전쟁 가해국과 피해국 사이의) 화해를 위한 전제”라고 함으로써 ‘과거사 부정’ 행보를 계속하고 있는 아베 신조(安倍晋三) 일본 정권에 일침을 가했다. 독일과 일본은 2차 세계대전의 책임 전범국이지만, 독일은 일본과 달리 이웃국가들과 화해하기까지 홀로코스트(유대인 대학살)를 비롯한 자국의 과오를 직시했음을 강조했다.
일본을 방문한 앙겔라 메르켈 독일 총리(왼쪽)가 9일 공동기자회견을 하던 도중 아베 신조 일본 총리를 바라보고 있다. 메르켈 총리는 이날 도쿄 시내 총리공관에서 아베 총리와 정상회담을 한 뒤 공동기자회견을 하면서 일본을 향해 “과거사를 직시하라”고 촉구했다. 도쿄 | AP연합뉴스
메르켈 총리는 앞서 아사히신문사 강연에서도 “(유럽에서 화해를 이룰 수 있게 된 것은) 독일이 과거를 정면으로 마주했기 때문”이라며 아베 정권을 향해 ‘과거사를 직시하라’고 주문했다. 역사인식 갈등을 둘러싸고 가해국 일본과 피해국인 한국, 중국을 사실상 싸잡아 비난한 웬디 셔먼 미 국무부 차관과 달리 가해국이 먼저 해야 할 일을 강조한 것으로도 해석된다.
메르켈의 이런 발언은 전후 세대이면서도 독일의 전쟁범죄에 대해 여러 차례 사죄해온 그동안 역사관과 행보의 연장선상에 있다.
2005년 독일 최초 여성 총리로 취임한 그는 2007년 9월 유엔총회에서 독일의 역사적 과오에 대해 거듭 사과했다. 이듬해 3월에는 이스라엘 의회 연설을 통해 “홀로코스트는 독일인에게 가장 큰 수치”라면서 이스라엘을 포함한 전 세계에 공개적으로 사죄한 바 있다. 또 독일 현직 총리로는 처음으로 2013년 8월 2차 대전 당시의 나치 수용소인 다하우 추모관을 방문, “수감자들의 운명을 떠올리며 깊은 슬픔과 부끄러움을 느낀다”는 연설을 하기도 했다. 그는 진정을 담은 사죄의사를 반복적으로 나타냄으로써 프랑스 등 주변 국가들의 신뢰를 얻었다.
메르켈 총리의 이번 발언은 야스쿠니(靖國)신사 참배 등 과거 역사의 잘못을 부정하는 태도를 지속적으로 보이면서 역사수정주의의 길을 걸어가고 있는 아베 정권에 적잖은 부담이 될 것으로 보인다. 그동안 아베 정권은 ‘독일의 사례를 배우라’는 일본 국내외의 요구를 사실상 무시하는 행보를 보여왔다.
이에 따라 아베 총리가 오는 8월15일 발표할 것으로 예상되는 전후 70년 담화(아베 담화)에 메르켈 총리의 발언이 어느 정도 영향을 끼칠지 주목된다. 최근 아베 총리는 그동안 역대 정권이 담화에 담아왔던 식민지배와 침략에 대한 반성 및 사죄에 관한 표현을 빼려는 움직임을 보이면서 주변국의 우려를 사왔다.
갱생해서 잘사는사람 VS 정신못차리고 흉기 만지작거리는새끼ㅇㅇ
물론 독일의 과거사 청산이 홀로코스트와 유태인 쪽에만 집중되서 집시 학살 문제와, 독일제국 당시의 헤레로족 학살 관련은 쎳더아가리라는 점이 문제긴 한데, 그걸 감안하더라도 쨉스폭도 나부랭이가 들이댈 수 있는 수준이 아니라는 건 만 천하가 다 아는 사실ㅇㅇ
그게 아니더라도 이바구 잘못놀리면 나치망령부활+중국의 태클 기타등등 애로사항이 졸라 꽃필 거라는 계산도 있을법 하긴 한데, 그걸 다 따지고 가더라도 (무한반복)
[The National Interest] U.S. Should Be Appalled by Japan's Historical Revisionism - If Imperial Japan was the victim in WWII, than Harry Truman, not Hideki Tojo, must be the war criminal.
In a late January address to Parliament, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe directly entered the fray in Tokyo’s accelerated attempts to rewrite World War II history.
As the New York Times reported at the time, in the speech Mr. Abe vowed “to step up efforts to fight what he called mistaken views abroad concerning Japan’s wartime actions.”
The prime minister was referring specifically to references to Comfort Women in a McGraw Hill-published textbook used in some California high schools. However, while Japan’s historic revisionism may begin with the Comfort Women and the Nanking Massacre, it ends with President Truman and the atomic bomb. If Japan is the victim in the Pacific War, Tokyo would have it, then America must be the aggressor and Harry Truman, not Hideki Tojo, the war criminal.
Those who argue that the United States should have little interest in the current debate raging over the historic legacy of the Second World War in Asia need to think again. First and foremost, the Pacific War, which ended 70 years ago this coming summer, was very much America’s war too.
While the Second World War had raging in both Asia and Europe for years, it began for the United States on December 7, 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Following the surprise attack, America declared war on Imperial Japan, NOT Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. The recent movie “Unbroken” is a chilling reminder of what that declaration of war meant for America’s Greatest Generation.
Tokyo’s revisionist logic is centered on the premise of Japan being victimized by the Allied powers, most notably in the fire bombings of Tokyo and the devastating atomic bombings of the of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in thousands of civilian casualties.
This revisionist narrative is laid out in detail at the Yushukan museum in Tokyo next to the Yasukuni war shrine. The logic is as follows: Imperial Japan waged the Great East Asia War (Daitowa Senso) in an effort to liberate the Asian peoples from the yoke of Western Imperialism. The “selfless goal” was to bring the enlightened modernization of Meiji Japan to hopelessly backward Asian brothers and sisters.
The Yushukan museum claims that U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt sought to halt this crusade of “Asia for Asians” by imposing an oil embargo that aimed to cripple Tokyo’s war-making capacity. According to the narrative, then, Japan had no choice but to respond to Roosevelt’s interference by attacking the U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.
The unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor was the greatest such attack on American soil before 9/11. Notably, the Pearl Harbor attack also had civilian casualties, including a seven month-old infant.
In truth, Pearl Harbor likely had more to do with Japan signing the Tripartite Pact with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in Berlin on September 27, 1940 than with FDR’s oil embargo. Even the bravado of Japanese militarists would likely have been tempered by the sobering thought of taking on the industrial might of the United States all alone.
When the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was reached in the fall of 1941, Nazi troops were engaged in a full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union. It looked as though the Allies would be preoccupied with stopping the Nazi blitzkrieg, leaving Tokyo a free hand in Asia. Hitler’s troops reached the outskirts of Moscow before a Soviet counterattack on December 5, 1941 – a mere forty-eight hours before Pearl Harbor. As Japanese bombs fell in the Pacific, the Red Army and a ferocious Russian winter combined to begin to turn the tide against Hitler in Europe. Still, Hitler and Mussolini, foolishly in retrospect, honored their treaty commitment to Tokyo by declaring war on the United States in response to Congress declaring war on Japan.
Unlike in Europe, history revisionists in Tokyo are not limited to isolated neo-Nazis and skinheads. Rather they include respected figures in Japanese society, including politicians and journalists. The crimes committed during the Pacific War which these Japanese opinion leaders now deny are critical to the judgment of history. While the overwhelming majority of the victims in the Nanking massacre, the Sook Ching massacre in Singapore, the sacking of Manila, Tokyo’s slave labor system, Unit 731’s bio-chemical experiments in Manchuria, and the Comfort Women stations, were Asians, rather than Americans or Europeans, these atrocities join other Axis war crimes and crimes against humanity as a major rationale for post-war international tribunals, including Nuremberg.
(The torture of POW slave laborers, as chronicled in “Unbroken,” along with the Bataan Death March and Siam-Burma Railway laborer abuse, was directed primarily against Caucasians and African-Americans. One sobering statistic: “Overall, an estimated 40 percent of U.S. Army and Air Force POWs died while in Japanese captivity, compared to 1.2 percent in German and Italian custody.” The bushido militarist culture in Imperial Japan preached that any soldier who surrendered rather than dying in battle was below contempt.)
The continued validation of crimes committed by Imperial Japan during the war, thus, remains essential if the Allied narrative of repelling a war of aggression is to prevail. The structure of the United Nations itself, whose five permanent Security Council members are WWII’s victorious powers, is premised upon this. Remaining silent in the face of Japanese denials of Comfort Women or the Nanking Massacre could ultimately undermine the whole rationale for the post-war international system.
(The torture of POW slave laborers, as chronicled in “Unbroken,” along with the Bataan Death March and Siam-Burma Railway laborer abuse, was directed primarily against Caucasians and African-Americans. One sobering statistic: “Overall, an estimated 40 percent of U.S. Army and Air Force POWs died while in Japanese captivity, compared to 1.2 percent in German and Italian custody.” The bushido militarist culture in Imperial Japan preached that any soldier who surrendered rather than dying in battle was below contempt.)
The continued validation of crimes committed by Imperial Japan during the war, thus, remains essential if the Allied narrative of repelling a war of aggression is to prevail. The structure of the United Nations itself, whose five permanent Security Council members are WWII’s victorious powers, is premised upon this. Remaining silent in the face of Japanese denials of Comfort Women or the Nanking Massacre could ultimately undermine the whole rationale for the post-war international system.
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) was convened in Tokyo to try Japanese leaders— including Hideki Tojo, architect of the Pearl Harbor attack— as war criminals. The IMTFE, however, is widely dismissed in Japan as “victor’s justice.” Many argue that those who were tried were only performing their patriotic duty to the Emperor, whose role in the war was never officially examined. Many also contend that the Allies sitting in judgment had committed far greater war crimes on a helpless Japan, including, as noted previously, the firebombing of Tokyo and the dropping of the atom bombs.
In his excellent book, Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan, Ian Buruma points out that when the United Nations convened a Conference on Disarmament in Hiroshima in July 1992, “all went well” until an American Harvard professor spoke. Buruma records how the professor presented the Greatest Generation’s explanation for the atomic bombing by stating that “it ended World War II and saved a million Japanese lives.” Buruma records that the professor’s statements caused “outrage” among the Japanese public and that the Asahi Shimbun opined that unless the United States “disentangled itself from this kind of view” it would face opposition from non-nuclear countries.
Yet without this explanation, the use of atomic bombs on two cities filled with civilians is horrific and unjustifiable. War correspondent John Hersey’s compelling book Hiroshima, written in the immediate aftermath of the attack, with its graphic description of melted eyeballs and the shadow of a vaporized victim burned into a tile wall, would stir any person’s conscience. Japanese people cannot be criticized for reacting with horror, especially since their textbooks and educational system reportedly gloss over the war crimes Imperial Japan committed before the atomic bombings.
If the Nanking Massacre “never happened,” as NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) Governor Naoki Hyakuta declared in February of last year, then there is no problem with going to Yasukuni Shrine to honor the spirit tablet of General Iwane Matsui, who commanded the Shanghai Expeditionary Force (SEF) in the assault on Nanking in 1937-38 and was sentenced to death by the IMTFE. However, if, as documented by the IMTFE, at least 200,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed in the massacre, then honoring the memory of Matsui is the equivalent of honoring Adolf Eichmann, who was convicted of murdering 437,000 Hungarian Jews.
Both the Obama administration and Congress should be concerned that, by losing control of the World War II historic narrative, they could pave the way to the ultimate determination that President Harry S. Truman was the real war criminal in WWII. Without the crimes against peace chronicled by the IMTFE, there is little moral justification for the atomic bombings beyond the “they saved lives” narrative (which is largely dismissed in Japan).
One reportedly popular narrative in Japan is that Harry Truman and his advisors were white racists determined to use the ultimate weapon on an Asian people to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the horror of a nuclear holocaust. (This ignores the fact that the bomb was developed to be used against the Nazis, who were busy trying to perfect their own atomic weapon. The plan changed when Nazi Germany surrendered and Imperial Japan kept fighting.)
Those who advocate expressing remorse for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, such as Nancy Pelosi— who placed flowers at the Hiroshima bombing site when she was House Speaker in 2008— should be aware that such gestures will be misrepresented by the revisionist right in Japan to paint Truman as a war criminal.
And such gestures, without some reciprocal official gesture of remorse from Tokyo over the attack on Pearl Harbor, would not only undermine American prestige in Asian countries victimized by Imperial Japan, but would also jeopardize the whole Allied justification for the war. Furthermore, such a one-way American apology would disturb the spirits of the 1,102 sailors and marines enshrined forever in a watery grave in the hull of the USS Arizona at the bottom of Pearl Harbor.
Dennis Halpin, a former advisor on Asian issues to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is currently a visiting scholar at the US-Korea Institute at SAIS (Johns Hopkins) and a consultant to the Poblete Analysis Group (PAG).
<앞의 짤은 드러워서 생략.>
In a late January address to Parliament, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe directly entered the fray in Tokyo’s accelerated attempts to rewrite World War II history.
As the New York Times reported at the time, in the speech Mr. Abe vowed “to step up efforts to fight what he called mistaken views abroad concerning Japan’s wartime actions.”
The prime minister was referring specifically to references to Comfort Women in a McGraw Hill-published textbook used in some California high schools. However, while Japan’s historic revisionism may begin with the Comfort Women and the Nanking Massacre, it ends with President Truman and the atomic bomb. If Japan is the victim in the Pacific War, Tokyo would have it, then America must be the aggressor and Harry Truman, not Hideki Tojo, the war criminal.
Those who argue that the United States should have little interest in the current debate raging over the historic legacy of the Second World War in Asia need to think again. First and foremost, the Pacific War, which ended 70 years ago this coming summer, was very much America’s war too.
While the Second World War had raging in both Asia and Europe for years, it began for the United States on December 7, 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Following the surprise attack, America declared war on Imperial Japan, NOT Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. The recent movie “Unbroken” is a chilling reminder of what that declaration of war meant for America’s Greatest Generation.
Tokyo’s revisionist logic is centered on the premise of Japan being victimized by the Allied powers, most notably in the fire bombings of Tokyo and the devastating atomic bombings of the of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in thousands of civilian casualties.
This revisionist narrative is laid out in detail at the Yushukan museum in Tokyo next to the Yasukuni war shrine. The logic is as follows: Imperial Japan waged the Great East Asia War (Daitowa Senso) in an effort to liberate the Asian peoples from the yoke of Western Imperialism. The “selfless goal” was to bring the enlightened modernization of Meiji Japan to hopelessly backward Asian brothers and sisters.
The Yushukan museum claims that U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt sought to halt this crusade of “Asia for Asians” by imposing an oil embargo that aimed to cripple Tokyo’s war-making capacity. According to the narrative, then, Japan had no choice but to respond to Roosevelt’s interference by attacking the U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.
The unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor was the greatest such attack on American soil before 9/11. Notably, the Pearl Harbor attack also had civilian casualties, including a seven month-old infant.
In truth, Pearl Harbor likely had more to do with Japan signing the Tripartite Pact with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in Berlin on September 27, 1940 than with FDR’s oil embargo. Even the bravado of Japanese militarists would likely have been tempered by the sobering thought of taking on the industrial might of the United States all alone.
When the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was reached in the fall of 1941, Nazi troops were engaged in a full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union. It looked as though the Allies would be preoccupied with stopping the Nazi blitzkrieg, leaving Tokyo a free hand in Asia. Hitler’s troops reached the outskirts of Moscow before a Soviet counterattack on December 5, 1941 – a mere forty-eight hours before Pearl Harbor. As Japanese bombs fell in the Pacific, the Red Army and a ferocious Russian winter combined to begin to turn the tide against Hitler in Europe. Still, Hitler and Mussolini, foolishly in retrospect, honored their treaty commitment to Tokyo by declaring war on the United States in response to Congress declaring war on Japan.
Unlike in Europe, history revisionists in Tokyo are not limited to isolated neo-Nazis and skinheads. Rather they include respected figures in Japanese society, including politicians and journalists. The crimes committed during the Pacific War which these Japanese opinion leaders now deny are critical to the judgment of history. While the overwhelming majority of the victims in the Nanking massacre, the Sook Ching massacre in Singapore, the sacking of Manila, Tokyo’s slave labor system, Unit 731’s bio-chemical experiments in Manchuria, and the Comfort Women stations, were Asians, rather than Americans or Europeans, these atrocities join other Axis war crimes and crimes against humanity as a major rationale for post-war international tribunals, including Nuremberg.
(The torture of POW slave laborers, as chronicled in “Unbroken,” along with the Bataan Death March and Siam-Burma Railway laborer abuse, was directed primarily against Caucasians and African-Americans. One sobering statistic: “Overall, an estimated 40 percent of U.S. Army and Air Force POWs died while in Japanese captivity, compared to 1.2 percent in German and Italian custody.” The bushido militarist culture in Imperial Japan preached that any soldier who surrendered rather than dying in battle was below contempt.)
The continued validation of crimes committed by Imperial Japan during the war, thus, remains essential if the Allied narrative of repelling a war of aggression is to prevail. The structure of the United Nations itself, whose five permanent Security Council members are WWII’s victorious powers, is premised upon this. Remaining silent in the face of Japanese denials of Comfort Women or the Nanking Massacre could ultimately undermine the whole rationale for the post-war international system.
(The torture of POW slave laborers, as chronicled in “Unbroken,” along with the Bataan Death March and Siam-Burma Railway laborer abuse, was directed primarily against Caucasians and African-Americans. One sobering statistic: “Overall, an estimated 40 percent of U.S. Army and Air Force POWs died while in Japanese captivity, compared to 1.2 percent in German and Italian custody.” The bushido militarist culture in Imperial Japan preached that any soldier who surrendered rather than dying in battle was below contempt.)
The continued validation of crimes committed by Imperial Japan during the war, thus, remains essential if the Allied narrative of repelling a war of aggression is to prevail. The structure of the United Nations itself, whose five permanent Security Council members are WWII’s victorious powers, is premised upon this. Remaining silent in the face of Japanese denials of Comfort Women or the Nanking Massacre could ultimately undermine the whole rationale for the post-war international system.
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) was convened in Tokyo to try Japanese leaders— including Hideki Tojo, architect of the Pearl Harbor attack— as war criminals. The IMTFE, however, is widely dismissed in Japan as “victor’s justice.” Many argue that those who were tried were only performing their patriotic duty to the Emperor, whose role in the war was never officially examined. Many also contend that the Allies sitting in judgment had committed far greater war crimes on a helpless Japan, including, as noted previously, the firebombing of Tokyo and the dropping of the atom bombs.
In his excellent book, Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan, Ian Buruma points out that when the United Nations convened a Conference on Disarmament in Hiroshima in July 1992, “all went well” until an American Harvard professor spoke. Buruma records how the professor presented the Greatest Generation’s explanation for the atomic bombing by stating that “it ended World War II and saved a million Japanese lives.” Buruma records that the professor’s statements caused “outrage” among the Japanese public and that the Asahi Shimbun opined that unless the United States “disentangled itself from this kind of view” it would face opposition from non-nuclear countries.
Yet without this explanation, the use of atomic bombs on two cities filled with civilians is horrific and unjustifiable. War correspondent John Hersey’s compelling book Hiroshima, written in the immediate aftermath of the attack, with its graphic description of melted eyeballs and the shadow of a vaporized victim burned into a tile wall, would stir any person’s conscience. Japanese people cannot be criticized for reacting with horror, especially since their textbooks and educational system reportedly gloss over the war crimes Imperial Japan committed before the atomic bombings.
If the Nanking Massacre “never happened,” as NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) Governor Naoki Hyakuta declared in February of last year, then there is no problem with going to Yasukuni Shrine to honor the spirit tablet of General Iwane Matsui, who commanded the Shanghai Expeditionary Force (SEF) in the assault on Nanking in 1937-38 and was sentenced to death by the IMTFE. However, if, as documented by the IMTFE, at least 200,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed in the massacre, then honoring the memory of Matsui is the equivalent of honoring Adolf Eichmann, who was convicted of murdering 437,000 Hungarian Jews.
Both the Obama administration and Congress should be concerned that, by losing control of the World War II historic narrative, they could pave the way to the ultimate determination that President Harry S. Truman was the real war criminal in WWII. Without the crimes against peace chronicled by the IMTFE, there is little moral justification for the atomic bombings beyond the “they saved lives” narrative (which is largely dismissed in Japan).
One reportedly popular narrative in Japan is that Harry Truman and his advisors were white racists determined to use the ultimate weapon on an Asian people to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the horror of a nuclear holocaust. (This ignores the fact that the bomb was developed to be used against the Nazis, who were busy trying to perfect their own atomic weapon. The plan changed when Nazi Germany surrendered and Imperial Japan kept fighting.)
Those who advocate expressing remorse for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, such as Nancy Pelosi— who placed flowers at the Hiroshima bombing site when she was House Speaker in 2008— should be aware that such gestures will be misrepresented by the revisionist right in Japan to paint Truman as a war criminal.
And such gestures, without some reciprocal official gesture of remorse from Tokyo over the attack on Pearl Harbor, would not only undermine American prestige in Asian countries victimized by Imperial Japan, but would also jeopardize the whole Allied justification for the war. Furthermore, such a one-way American apology would disturb the spirits of the 1,102 sailors and marines enshrined forever in a watery grave in the hull of the USS Arizona at the bottom of Pearl Harbor.
Dennis Halpin, a former advisor on Asian issues to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is currently a visiting scholar at the US-Korea Institute at SAIS (Johns Hopkins) and a consultant to the Poblete Analysis Group (PAG).
그러고보니, 내셔널인터레스트지에서도
지들 사업파트너 손 좀 보라고 기고문을 써놨던데,
이제와서 그래봐야 ㅉㅉ
지들 사업파트너 손 좀 보라고 기고문을 써놨던데,
이제와서 그래봐야 ㅉㅉ
tag : 자_폭도원숭이들아.소감은ㅇㅇ？