'Yasukuni' opens under heavy security; gets mixed reaction

Sunday 04th May, 10:31 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 47 Total Comments Show All

nigelboy at 11:12 AM JST - 7th May

The Goverment has repeatedly asked the shrine to remove those remains and the shrine has refused every-time. Also when those Class A War-criminals were enshrined it was not done with permission by the than authorities.

"The Goverment has been trying for some years now to setup a new war-memorial but has run into problems moving remains from the shrine to the new site and also by families of fallen soldiers that want them to remain at Yasukuni.

This info is readily available on the Net."

Well. There are no "remains" in Yasukuni so you're waaay off base.
Hughgarse at 01:17 PM JST - 7th May

I wanted to see and judge the contents for myself

which is exactly how it should be, and have the Gvmnt keep their grubby hands off!
Seiharinokaze at 07:40 PM JST - 8th May

For this reason, JP government's current intent of worshipping as the pursuit of everlasting peace is hampered by the role of shrine which produces seductive discourse of nostalgia for war legacy.

Perhaps such nostalgia might be more aptly termed as the Tokyo Trial syndrome or something. In Japan's view or even some others' too, her initiation of military involvement in China could rather be outlined as follows: By having the Anglo-Japanese Alliance cancelled, the U.S. enforced on Japan the Washington Conference system (sort of internationalism of "Let's share China equally"), which the U.S. didn't observe herself yet trying to get into China's good book thus letting Chinese nationalism go out of control to the point which was more than Japan could stand. And quite nicely Japan was bogged down in China's civil war for the benefit of someone who would take control of the whole country eventually.

Director Li Ying might as well have shed a bit of light on this historical viewpoint in his movie, if he is a professed Japanophile (he says he is 愛日 rather than just 親日) who tried to present in-depth understanding of what the sword symbolism of Yasukuni as suggested in the film had to do with China. Probably Mao would take scarcely any stock of Yasukuni though knowingly.
amerijap at 05:01 AM JST - 9th May

the U.S. didn't observe herself yet trying to get into China's good book thus letting Chinese nationalism go out of control to the point which was more than Japan could stand.

China's perception of Japan as strategic rival, rather than congenial alley, may be reflected on the difference of US national/diplomatic relations with each country in historical context. After the Second World War, the AP allies decided to use Japan as a beachhead to monitor the Communist China. They pardoned most of former military officers, suspected war criminals, political elites, and national conservatives. The first JP prime minister after WWII was a suspected war criminal(Nobusuke Kishi)who successfully escaped the trial. In this respect, I'm reckoning that some or most conservatives/right-wing intelligence hold that they are right, because the U.S. eventually condoned the sins of blind followers and guilty parties of JP national imperialism.

On the other hand, China was in a civil war between Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Army and Mao Zedong's People’s Liberation Army in the mid 1940s. As you know, Chiang Kai-shek, who was hostile to Japan, held an alliance with the U.S in his political reign. Mao chose a different path from the predecessor, becoming the national leader of Communism in order to fight against the western imperialism during the Cold War period. Interestingly, Mao did not show an avenging hostility toward Japan like Chiang Kai-shek’s; he let most of JP POWs go home with a tidbit of reminder about the past.

I agree that the U.S. shift in military strategy had tempted Chinese nationalism after WWII. Yet during the Cold War period it was still within control, because Communist China mainly targeted the U.S. rather than Japan. It is Spring 1982 that China's perception of Japan had changed, when Japanese media's exaggerating and inaccurate report of revising history textbooks (changing the words of ‘invasion’ to ‘advance’ referring it to the event of the Nanjing Massacre) was accidentally leaked to the public, and spread to the Asia and other foreign countries.
amerijap at 05:16 AM JST - 9th May

Correction: The first JP prime minister after WWII is Naruhiko Higashikuni, not Nobusuke Kishi. Kishi served as a prime minister from February 25, 1957 to June 12, 1958 and from then to July 19, 1960.(Check with Wekipedia).

Interestingly, Mao did not show an avenging hostility toward Japan like Chiang Kai-shek’s

I mean Kai-shek did. My bad.
amerijap at 07:29 AM JST - 9th May

Correction 2:

The first JP prime minister after WWII was a suspected war criminal(Nobusuke Kishi)who successfully escaped the trial.

Kishi actually did serve a sentence for three years after WWII. So, he is among those right-wingers who got benefited from the policies of the AP allies during the U.S. occupation.
2_cents at 02:16 PM JST - 9th May

Swung by the Osaka theatre today. It only holds 96 people so will be crowded, likely. No police yet for tomorrow's opening. Tried to get a ticket but they have no reservation system so I will just have to go again. Went to Yasukuni Shrine last week so want to see the film, too. Of course the museum is guilty of grave omissions, but as I understand it, it is a private institution and can omit whatever they want. It is a sanitized view of Japanese expansionism that tries to explain the invasion of Asia as being wanted by Asians and that the white man (and his embargos) is the reason the expansion was necessary. This story is then used as the reason Japan needed to be protected and the soldiers who died did so making the modern Japan. All quite twisted, but no more so than many other museums around the world. Chinese visitors would be and were shocked, however. When I see a U.S. museum state that mass killing of Vietnamese happened, and that bombing of Iraqi civilians happened, then we westerners will have a moral leg to stand on regarding Yasukuni.
Seiharinokaze at 07:20 PM JST - 10th May

I agree that the U.S. shift in military strategy had tempted Chinese nationalism after WWII.

It's not about the U.S. military strategy after WWII. It's about the unrealistically friendly attitude of the U.S. toward China in 1920's after the Washington Conference that tempted Chinese nationalism to go out of control and ultimately induced Japan's military involvement in Manchuria.

The Washington Conference aimed for cooperation among the western powers including Japan on how to deal with China in 1920's. And China was expected to behave responsibly in compliance with international rules and standards so that China might achieve her aims (such as the revision of unequal treaties) without discordance with other countries just as Japan had achieved by modernizing herself.

However the spirit of the Washington Conference was disregarded by China herself who thought the scheme of the conference as an occasion to claim her rights and disdain foreign powers outright rather than to try to abide by international rules. The U.S. also overlooked it and chose to ingratiate herself with China whereas gave the cold shoulder to Japan who had already crucial interests in China incomparable to other western countries and yet tried to conduct scrupulously according to the spirit of the conference. As a result it helped China's hysterically hyper-tense nationalism get more rampant with never ending boycotts of made-in-Japan products. On the other hand the Soviets warmly aided CCP to stir up anti-Japan violence. These were the background of Manchurian Incident of 1931, the eruption as it were of sword symbolism this movie tries to imply. Director Li Ying with all his critical view might as well have thought of how the sword had to be unsheathed too. Then would he wonder if Mao and Chiang Kaishek could care less about Yasukuni than any of their descendants and Li himself?
amerijap at 04:59 AM JST - 11th May

It's about the unrealistically friendly attitude of the U.S. toward China in 1920's after the Washington Conference that tempted Chinese nationalism to go out of control and ultimately induced Japan's military involvement in Manchuria.

OK. Maybe it's right the Chinese nationalism(depends on how you look at it) might have been stirred up in this context. But, it's quite hard for me to agree that such tension was caused primarily by the US, because Japan was also showing great hostility toward China. Both China and Japan had a historical bad blood for more than hundred of years.

The U.S. also overlooked it and chose to ingratiate herself with China whereas gave the cold shoulder to Japan who had already crucial interests in China incomparable to other western countries and yet tried to conduct scrupulously according to the spirit of the conference.

If this statement is true, maybe you're right. Such contrast in US attitude might have been shown even before WWII. This could be the trigger that could drive a wedge between Japan and China, although it's in a nascent stage.

As a result it helped China's hysterically hyper-tense nationalism get more rampant with never ending boycotts of made-in-Japan products.

Are you saying that China's current hysterical nationalism toward Japan(and the US, maybe) is motivated from the context in this historical period? It could be. But I don't think this is the single factor. You're trying to make an analogy by skipping more than 60 years from the 1920s. You also need to look into the events in the periods during and after WWII. Change of Chinese regime, historical shift to the Cold War, after the end of the Cold War, significant contrasts of US attitude toward Japan and China underlying these periods. China's boycott of Japanese products is apparently the reflection of historical controversy(history textbook disputes) flared up in the early 1980s, the 1990s, and 2005.

Director Li Ying with all his critical view might as well have thought of how the sword had to be unsheathed too.

I don't know Ying's entire intention in this respect. The sword was regarded as the rhetorical symbol implying the atrociousness of Japanese imperial army during that period. For Japanese, it was the symbol of strength(masculinity) and pride(harakiri suicide). Yet, for non-Japanese, it was the symbol of atrocity and death.

Then would he wonder if Mao and Chiang Kaishek could care less about Yasukuni than any of their descendants and Li himself?

Why do you need bother to link Mao and Chiang Kaishek with Yasukuni? That's not what I discussed in my previous post.
Seiharinokaze at 06:31 PM JST - 11th May

To amerijap:

But, it's quite hard for me to agree that such tension was caused primarily by the US, because Japan was also showing great hostility toward China. Both China and Japan had a historical bad blood for more than hundred of years.

It was not a one-way hostility. Japan had crucial interests in China in terms of trade and commerce as well as vested interests in the leased territories incomparable to those of other western countries as necessitated by geographical vicinity and resulted from the historical development. The Washington Conference which advocated international cooperation among its signatory countries with regard to China only let her disregard international rules and get more rude and hostile to foreign countries, above all to Japan. The U.S. instead of going by the spirit of the conference was patronizingly indulgent to China. This in fact let her take a more defiant attitude than ever neglecting to abide by international standards to the point Japan couldn't stand.

Are you saying that China's current hysterical nationalism toward Japan(and the US, maybe) is motivated from the context in this historical period? It could be. But I don't think this is the single factor. You're trying to make an analogy by skipping more than 60 years from the 1920s.

I'm not saying about China's current nationalism. I mean the one in the 1920's as the background of Japan's military involvement in China. The present weird nationalism of China against Japan is another matter. Perhaps it's the result of CCP's policy shift after the end of the Cold War. Anti-Japan ideologue might have been convenient to preserve the otherwise rather precarious legitimacy of CCP. In this sense Yasukuni has become a rather good political diversion for China after the Berlin Wall collapsed.

I don't know Ying's entire intention in this respect. The sword was regarded as the rhetorical symbol implying the atrociousness of Japanese imperial army during that period. For Japanese, it was the symbol of strength(masculinity) and pride(harakiri suicide). Yet, for non-Japanese, it was the symbol of atrocity and death.

Technically or theologically speaking, the sword as the object of worship housed in Yasukuni has no bearing on what Director Li Ying implied in the film or what Mr. Kariya the sword-smith featured in the movie forged as Yasukuni-To (靖国刀). The objects of worship, Goshintai (御神体) in Yasukuni shrine are "Kagami (御鏡)" and "Tsurugi (御剣)" quite common objects of worship in Shinto shrines nationwide since ancient times including Atsuta-Jingu and Isonokami-Jingu. Tsurugi is different from what is generally known as a Japanese sword (日本刀). It has nothing to do with pride or harakiri suicide, still less with atrocity and death.　

Why do you need bother to link Mao and Chiang Kaishek with Yasukuni? That's not what I discussed in my previous post.

Both figures as the party leaders who actually fought with Japan perhaps have the right to say something about it too. And yet they would care less, I should think.
2_cents at 09:00 PM JST - 11th May

Well, saw the movie today in Osaka. It was full and quite riveting. The general thrust is that Yasukuni is a place where rabid nationalists gather and that it has served as the religious focal point for much of Japan's war making. The sword maker from Kochi seems like a bit of a pawn rather than anyone bad. He is just a typical high quality craftsman that Japan is famous for. Toward the end, many scenes of Hirohito are shown at Yasukuni as well as pictures of beheadings in Asia. These images are alternated to make the viewer get the connection between Yasukuni, state Shintoism and the slaughter in Asia. As a piece of documentary work, the music is what stood out for me, it was amazingly well chosen. Also, the hidden camera work at Yasukuni also caught the nationalists at their crazy best and took a fair bit of bravery to film. By coincidence, I was in the line to get in with a Chinese guy and because it was sold out, we sat on the floor together and watched the film. I found this rather moving as the hatred of China shown by some of the nationalists was pathetic. My only gripe about the film is that the scene where the Chinese man is beaten up must have been staged, I mean that the director knew the rally by nationalists was going to be heckled by the Chinese man and hence he knew something bad was going to happen. Not too professional in my book. Overall an excellent film and as the Chinese man I watched it with said, it would be nice if it could be shown in schools. (not a chance of this happening, however)
amerijap at 10:20 AM JST - 12th May

Seiharinokaze:

It was not a one-way hostility. Japan had crucial interests in China in terms of trade and commerce as well as vested interests in the leased territories incomparable to those of other western countries as necessitated by geographical vicinity and resulted from the historical development. The Washington Conference which advocated international cooperation among its signatory countries with regard to China only let her disregard international rules and get more rude and hostile to foreign countries, above all to Japan. The U.S. instead of going by the spirit of the conference was patronizingly indulgent to China. This in fact let her take a more defiant attitude than ever neglecting to abide by international standards to the point Japan couldn't stand.

Yeah, sounds like a fair argument. Still, I’m not sure this was the beginning of Japanese hostility toward China, and China against Japan vice versa, though.

I'm not saying about China's current nationalism. I mean the one in the 1920's as the background of Japan's military involvement in China. The present weird nationalism of China against Japan is another matter. Perhaps it's the result of CCP's policy shift after the end of the Cold War. Anti-Japan ideologue might have been convenient to preserve the otherwise rather precarious legitimacy of CCP.

OK. But, how does the Chinese nationalism in the 1920s relate to China’s current attitude toward Japan in political/diplomatic context? In your previous post, you just sounded like China’s repetitive outbursts toward Japan over international politics and past history are derived from the anti-Japanese Semitism in the 1920s. It could be to some extent. But I don’t think that Sentiment remained the same during WWII and the Cold War for the very reason I mentioned in the previous post. Also,I’m still not sure what you mean by “out of control” in this respect. Do you mean that China was chanting anti-Japanese(or American) Semitism from that period until today? I don’t see that way (hope you don’t either), because Mao’s CCP was targeting the US during the Cold War Period, not Japan. His regime actually suppressed the tragic memory of WWII(ex. the Nanjing Massacre) for the sake of regaining Chinese national pride. After the Cold War, Japan was seeking a reconciliation with China, after US President Richard Nixon visited China and normalized a diplomatic relationship in 1971. Japan eventually mended a national relationship with China in 1972. They were on the right track at least in the 1970s, until Japan faced an outrage from Asia over the history textbook controversy in spring 1982, which was caused by JP media’s excessive and inaccurate report. That media blunder gave China not only a wrong perception of Japan, but unnecessary stigmatization on the entire Japanese public. It apparently misled China to believe that Japan was trying to revert itself to the pre-war status by indoctrinating war of aggression in an academic community and public.

Yasukuni has become a rather good political diversion for China after the Berlin Wall collapsed.

Well, I would say it’s not just for China, but for all the Asian countries which experienced the Japanese colonization during WWII.

Technically or theologically speaking, the sword as the object of worship housed in Yasukuni has no bearing on what Director Li Ying implied in the film or what Mr. Kariya the sword-smith featured in the movie forged as Yasukuni-To (靖国刀). The objects of worship, Goshintai (御神体) in Yasukuni shrine are "Kagami (御鏡)" and "Tsurugi (御剣)" quite common objects of worship in Shinto shrines nationwide since ancient times including Atsuta-Jingu and Isonokami-Jingu. Tsurugi is different from what is generally known as a Japanese sword (日本刀). It has nothing to do with pride or harakiri suicide, still less with atrocity and death.

I gave you the symbolic meanings of materiality in general. They are the rhetorical symbols or references people are attached to the object. Maybe the sword kept in the shrine is the most sacred and precious one, and hard to come by for ordinary soldiers. I’m not sure such sword was never used during the wartime, however. Folks in the world are not yet ready to know the truth, I guess. 　
Seiharinokaze at 04:59 PM JST - 13th May

Sorry I may have digressed. Anyway "Goshintai" such swords as housed in the shrine were never used during the wartime. The craftsmanship of the sword-smith in the film, the military action of Japan during WW2 and the worship object of Yasukuni have nothing to do with each other in themselves. But I agree we should see the movie.
nigelboy at 05:27 PM JST - 13th May

You're right Seiharinokaze.

The swords which Kariya has crafted is not the Japanese swords used in wartime. Secondly, as you may be already aware, the controversy among the certain Diet members is that Mr. Kariya's acceptance in the participation of the film was based on the understanding that the film was about his craftmanship.

Also, the topic of "censorship" does not apply in this case because no government official is censoring this film. What's being discussed among these certain politicians the validity of the Culturual Agency using the tax money to fund this film.
amerijap at 02:46 AM JST - 14th May

Judging from the last couple of postings, people may hold a wrong perception of toward a sword in general, possibly due to the symbolic image of "Japanese sword" which was rhetorically constituted in the context of WWII. Yeah, maybe you're right. The one in the shrine doesn't reflect a conventional weapon used for the combat. It's quite misleading for the folks, especially for those who are not familiar with Japanese history.