From: davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Followup: Chinese communists & Japanese Imperial Army
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:39:09 GMT
Organization: Aegis Society, Kyoto Japan

miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:

>davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane) writes:

>>Last week I made mention of how some people in the discussion groups
>>I lead said that the original entry of the JIA into China was at the
>>request of the then rebel, now current communistic government in
>>order to defeat the nationalists. Followup's asked for sources of
>>their idea so I asked them for details this week.

....

>	These views are also more or less those mentioned
>	in the history by Toland, in English.  He states early that
>	he is giving the "Japanese" view.  Really, it is the
>	view of those who waged the war and are looking to justify
>	it.

Yes, I am talking about "Japanese views". I think it's useful to
understand what people think in order to understand the situation. 

>	Toland is not a scholar, but a popular historian.  Nothing
>	wrong with that but it would be wise to read some
>	academic views as well.  Historians don't agree on every
>	thing, but one thng the professionals seem to concur on is
>	that the Japanese expansion had its routes in the 19th
>	century. ...

It seems to be so. The question raised by the people I talk with is
whether this expansion was intended as the terrrible thing it turned
out to be, or whether it was resistence to becoming yet another
colony of western powers. They feel quite strongly that it was a
jusifiable end that got totally out of hand, making the lives of
everybody in asia miserable, theirs included. 

>       Any country's history is the product of an
>	ebb and flow of ideas and coalitions so it is impossible
>	to characterize a whole nation by the thoughts of a few.
>	By tracing the writings, sayings and actions of the
>	leaders of some of these coalitions, it is possible to
>	build a case that the movement of the governing people was
>	towards expansion and that it was not a single event,
>	but a confluence of events.  This does not mean that it
>	was not explicit.  There were writers who said very clearly
>	and succintly what the goals of Japan should be.  Which
>	ideas took hold and became those of the governing people
>	is pretty clear to anyone who is able to look into the
>	histories of Japan.

I'm glad you said that, and said it so well. I think it could be
summarized by the phrase "historical concensus".  IMHO this is very
different from often-repeated assertion by the Chinese goverment
concerning "historical truth. For example, at the Japan-China
relations symposium last on Sep 7, Chinese panelist Lue Jiangyong
insisted on an "an accurate understanding of history. We should not
distort pats historical truth."

Perhaps it's only due to the translation, but to my ears 'historical
truth' sounds to me one's mind is made up and thus any other opinion
is dismissed as 'distortion'. 

>	This does not make them correct, and you have no need to
>	suspend your critical faculties, but if you examine the
>	case that they build, you will find it fairly convincing.
>	The Reischauer book you said you have represents a
>	pretty universal consensus of professional historians
>	including Japanese, British, and American.
>	Other books go into more detail in building the case
>	and you may find them at the local university libraries.

Question: do these professional historians include professors
at Japanese universities?

>	There is also "the giggle factor."  The idea that because
>	of a minor incident at a bridge Japan felt compelled to
>	kill 15 million people, expand into colonial territories,
>	and start a suicidal war with the US and others is so
>	bizarre that you have to giggle at the thought.  These
>	minor incidents happen all the time and are usually glossed
>	over with a few diplomatic notes.  Only if you have
>	no other information, or have suspended your critical
>	thought processes can you believe this bridge incident
>	started the whole thing.  Lots of people seem
>	to think that if it is in a book, or on NHK, it must be
>	true, and that is what you are up against.  (Not a trait
>	peculiar to Japanese.)

One might be tempted to giggle, but looking at the repurcussions of
the idea, I do not. Consider Pearl Harbor: certainly not a minor
incident but was it solely responsible for America going to war in
the Pacific? I think not. 

I have no interest in or ability to determine the truth of the
matter: instead I am interested in the beliefs people have and the
impact that has on their actions, and thus on international relations. 

>>Again, please note: This is not my opinion. I am only reporting
>>what people told me. My part is to ask them questions. 

>	Please continue to do so.  It's interesting.

I haven't added any more updates as the thread had seemed to come to
and end. But with a reference to Toland (a title would be even more
useful) I have something to bring up at the next meeting of the
discussion group (Sep 22nd, Sep 15th is a national holiday). 

Last week somebody brought in a copy of the //Sekimatsu Kara Mita
Daitoa Senso// (loosely translated as "The >Great East Asia War:
Views from the End of the Century") so I know it physically exists.
It would interesting to know what a non-Japanese who can read
Japanese would have to say it contained.

Dave

--
Dave McLane 
JUNET: davidg@aegis.or.jp (ONLY within Japan: post otherwise)
Nagaokakyoshi, Kyoto Japan Tel: +81-75-951-1168 Fax: +81-75-957-1087