TOKYO TRIALS SHROUD COMMUNIST WARMONGERINGKOBORI Keiichiro
Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University
I.

Taboo expressions in Uzawa Somei’s closing argument

I would like to begin with an anecdote that symbolizes the subtleties in the title of thisessay in an accessible manner. The occasion was the closing argument presented by Dr.
Uzawa Somei, chief defense counsel at the Tokyo Trials, in which I detect aninexplicable timidity or reticence with regard to Communism. This was perhaps areflection of the climate that prevailed at the tribunal. In any case, that mentality surfaced
in some bizarre, unnatural turns of phrase, as I shall demonstrate.
The Tokyo Trials (formally, the IMTFE or International Military Tribunal for the Far
East) commenced on May 3, 1946 with the reading of the indictments. On June 13 theprosecution began presenting evidence to support the indictments, a process that
continued until January 24, 1947 (169 sessions). On February 24, after a one-monthrecess, the defense attorneys began presenting rebuttal evidence of a general nature. Thatphase ended on September 10 (after 103 sessions), and was followed by the presentationof evidence relating to individual defendants. The defense rested its case on January 12,
1948. Immediately thereafter the prosecution presented its rebuttal evidence, until
January 30, when the defense countered with its rebuttal evidence, until February 10.
The prosecution’s summation began on February 11, lasting until March 2, when the
defense presented its closing arguments. All the court proceedings were finished by April
15. After a recess of nearly six months the court reconvened on November 4, 1947, at
which time the reading of the voluminous judgments commenced. Sentences werepronounced on November 12.
The focus of this essay — chief defense counsel Dr. Uzawa Somei’s closing argument —was the first summation read on the afternoon of March 2, 1948 (the 384th session of thetribunal). His argument had been prepared well in advance, translated into English in its
entirety, and distributed to each of the judges. Uzawa needed only read it aloud inJapanese in the courtroom, a process that would have taken about an hour. In fact, theargument was an excerpt from an essay in his scholarly treatise Jurisprudence entitled“On Crafting Laws That Will Bring About World Peace from the Reality of theBattlefield of Life.”1 This particular work is part of Uzawa’s scholarly oeuvre and thus is
his independent scholarship from beginning to end. It differs in nature from Kiyose
Ichiro’s distinguished opening statement (which contains language deemed inflammatory
by the court). In fact, not only was Kiyose not permitted to read it in the courtroom, thestatement was also expunged from the tribunal transcript. That opening statement reflects
1

Uzawa Somei, Horitsu tetsugaku (Jurisprudence) (Tokyo: Meiji University, 1954).

1

a consensus reached after the defense attorneys had been polled for their opinions;Uzawa’s summation does not. Uzawa’s argument is a lofty jurisprudential argument,
formed from a vast storehouse of knowledge of things Eastern and Western in thepossession of a revered scholar of the Yi Jing (I Ching) and Laozi (Lao Tzu). None of
Uzawa’s colleagues on the defense team had the intellectual wherewithal to offer an
opinion on such exalted work.
Therefore Uzawa’s argument was not intended to dispute the charges against individual
defendants. Rather, it bore witness to the character of the defendants as a group. In termsof the value system prevailing at the time, it was a defense not of individuals, but of thenation of Japan. In simpler terms, the defendants had dedicated themselves to the Kingly
Way (as prescribed by Mencius), as I shall demonstrate. They therefore could not
possibly have conspired to wage an aggressive war that contravenes the laws ofcivilization, as the prosecution charged. Some might think that this approach — thepresentation of evidence relating to the character of the defendants — might lie outside
the purview of individual defense, but that is not the case. The defendants, arrested as agroup, were a state institution of Japan; the character and breeding of the defendants wasthat of the entity that was their nation, or the national character. What Uzawa argued andadvocated were thoughts and deeds rooted in the principles of a time-honored culture thatvalued forbearance and tolerance, as opposed to the Western nations, which espoused
rule by might.
However, it is extremely likely that only one of the judges, Radhabinod Pal, who
represented India, was able to comprehend Uzawa’s elevated argument about
jurisprudence. And sad as it may seem, it is equally unlikely that Uzawa’s final argument
had even a minimal effect on the judgments. It is true that of the judges, only Pal wascapable of understanding the argument. But more important, the other judges were notinterested in hearing what he said, and therefore did not listen to him.
To return to the theme of this paper, the first part of Uzawa’s closing argument contains
the following passage:
The spirit and reality of the American and French revolutions profoundly
affected the Meiji Restoration in Japan. Again Japan could not and can notstand aloof from the impact of the new revolutionary movements whichhave been sweeping the western nations in the past few decades. The
eruptivestagesleadinguptotheFrenchRevolution
was described by Thomas Carlyle very masterly, but its scale was not big
enough to depict the succeeding stages of revolutionary changes in theworld which developed into World War II.

This is not the most lucid of passages, and portions of it are even somewhat abstruse. I
would like to take the liberty of providing an explication. I would translate “Japan could
not and cannot stand aloof from the impact of the new revolutionary movements” as“Japan could not and cannot stand aloof from the Russian Revolution.” Similarly, further
along in the passage, “revolutionary changes in the world” most certainly refers to theRussian Revolution. I am reasonably sure that what Uzawa meant when referring to2

“revolutionary changes in the world” was that Carlyle’s sober historical narrative style
could not fully describe the savagery of the events of the Russian Revolution or themagnitude of its impact on the world. In other words, we cannot help but be fascinated by
Uzawa’s failure to mention Russia or the Soviet Union by name, and his depiction of thecommunist revolution as “revolutionary changes in the world.”
Moving on a bit further in this passage, we have the following:
I will not take the trouble to enumerate each and every event. However, I
do not believe that we can arrive at the truth unless we contemplate thevarious court cases to which the prosecution referred during theseproceedings compared with the tendency toward revolutionary changes in
the world.

This particular section appears in Jurisprudence, but not in the IMTFE transcript. It issafe to assume that the omission was intentional. Uzawa’s point was that many of thecases cited by the prosecution in its condemnation of Japan could not be comprehended
accurately without an understanding of the effects of the trends set in motion by thecommunist revolution that gave birth to the Soviet Union. Accordingly, it is highly likelythat Uzawa resorted to euphemism (or omission) either out of political consideration forthe prosecutor and judge representing the USSR. It is also possible that he was affectedby the atmosphere of constraint that reigned in the courtroom, or felt compelled toconform to it.
II. IMTFE proceedings marked by subterfuge and concealment
Though solicitude for the USSR dominated in the courtroom, the Japanese defense
attorneys did not necessarily feel restricted by nameless, implicit pressure, but bylinguistic restrictions imposed by court declaration. The defense team was therefore
compelled to be exceedingly prudent with regard to the language they used under peril ofcolliding with that bizarre restraining force, and then losing their freedom of expression.
The defense attorneys were forced to use that restraint, in a tangible manner, soon after
the defense rebuttals commenced on February 24, 1947. The defense rebuttals wereconducted in three stages: general matters, wartime diplomacy (for each nation involved),
and rebuttals concerning individual defendants. It became very clear in the second stageof the rebuttals, wartime diplomacy, when the following two subjects were broached: (1)Japanese diplomacy with China in the prelude to the Second Sino-Japanese War, and (2)Japanese diplomacy with the USSR following Japan’s conclusion of the Anti-Comintern
Pact with Germany.
Prior to the outbreak of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Japanese legations in Beijing,
Shanghai, Hankou, Guangdong and other Chinese cities transmitted the graphic details ofCommunist-instigated anti-Japanese campaigns in China and their effects (violent acts
against the property and lives of Japanese nationals) as they occurred, via encodedtelegrams transmitted to the Foreign Minister. As one might expect, those telegraphic

3

reports were kept on file at the Foreign Ministry, and were submitted to the IMTFE as
exhibits for the defense. Nevertheless, almost all the numerous reports on the antiJapanese movement were rejected by the court on the grounds that they did not constitutea defense for the dispatching of troops to defend Japanese interests in China. In otherwords, they were irrelevant. Specifically, of 74 reports from Japanese legations
documenting damage inflicted by the anti-Japanese movement submitted, the court
admitted only seven. The rest were rejected or withdrawn because of their similarity to
the rejected documents.
If I were to mention a few of the noteworthy documents rejected, it would be thefollowing three. The first is a group of statistical reports bearing titles such as “Major
Incidents of Sedition” (10 incidents), “Economic Blockade Against Japan,” and “AntiJapanese Aspects of Education in China” from Guide to Political and Economic
Relations Between Japan and China, compiled by the Osaka Chamber of Commerce. The
second is a report concerning British and American activities intended to fuel antiJapanese sentiment among the Chinese; it was sent by Obata Yukichi, Japaneseambassador to China in Beijing to Foreign Minister Uchida Kosai in 1919. The third is“Atrocities Committed by Nationalist Northern Expedition Troops During the Battle of
Nanjing,” an article that appeared in the Tokyo Asahi Shimbun in March 1927.
All these documents are excellent resources that describe the plots and conspiracies
devised by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). They also tell the story of the hardships
and purposefulness of our ancestors, and trace the efforts expended by the Japanese toprevent the spread of Communist ideology. But the IMTFE admitted exactly one of 75
defense exhibits pertaining to the CCP into evidence.
Among the rejected documents were long excerpts from The Communist Movement in
China and Manchuria, “The Communist Labor Movement,” and “Soviet Communist
Party Activity in Manchuria,” all issued in 1932 by the Foreign Ministry’s Asia Bureau.
Another report published in 1932 was History of the Communist Party, compiled by theForeign Ministry’s Information Bureau. A chapter from Edgar Snow’s Red Star over
China entitled “Basic Communist Policies” was rejected as well.2
Looking only at the number of exhibits rejected and their titles, one would be tempted toindicate a curious generosity, even timidity with respect to CCP conspiracies on the partof the court. But when the subject of diplomacy with the Soviet Union was broached,such consideration was even more patently obvious.
During that phase, topics to be addressed included the Anti-Comintern Pact, theZhanggufeng Incident, the armed conflict between Japanese and Soviet troops at
Nomonhan, Japanese armament against the USSR, and the Japanese-Soviet NonAggression Pact. However the atmosphere of solicitude for Communism that reigned in
the courtroom thwarted the defense team’s efforts to submit documentary evidence. On
May 16, 1947, when evidence relating to Japanese diplomacy with the USSR was first2

Edgar Snow, Red Star over China (London: V. Gollancz, 1937), pp. 97-105.

4

mentioned, William Webb, the tribunal’s president, went on record by proclaiming that
Communist movements in Europe had no connection with the Far East. Webb seemed tobe saying, “We have neither the authority nor the obligation to hand down a verdict
concerning Communist principles in various parts of the world.” This was the president’s
personal opinion, but it was interpreted as a premise that Webb had embraced for the
purposes of the trial. Because 13 of the 21 probative documents did not accord with thisprerequisite rule, in other words, because they were critical of Communist ideology, they
were rejected.
There is an interesting episode associated with the reading of the defense opening
statement concerning diplomacy with the USSR on that same day by attorney Aristides
Lazarus. He was about to mention that at the Council of Foreign Ministers held in thespring of that year (1947), it was clear that there were differences of opinion between the
US and the USSR (in other words, there were signs that the Cold War was about tobegin). When Lazarus began to read the portion of the opening statement that argued that
the Communist movement in Europe and the outbreak of a Communist threat in Asia
were valid justifications for the Anti-Comintern Pact, the president of the tribunal(supposedly at the behest of one of the judges) suddenly told him to stop reading andordered a recess. The proceedings resumed after 20 minutes. Then, when the defense
argument stated that Japan had made a choice, refusing to enter into a non-aggression
pact proposed by the USSR, thus demonstrating foresight in avoiding the repetition of
mistakes made by the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Poland andFinland, another objection was raised and Lazarus was forced to stop once again. It wasthen that Webb declared that the IMTFE had no right to judge Communist ideology. The
one saving grace was that Lazarus was able to read his statement in its entirety.
Ultimately, thanks to Lazarus’ courage, we were able to obtain precious testimony at theTokyo Trials, i.e., the world’s recognition of the danger of Communism and Communist
thought, and the historical causality between the CCP’s explicit declaration of war
against Japan (the August 1 Declaration) issued on August 1, 1935 and Japan’s rightful
resolve to combat the threat posed by the spread of Communism to ensure its survival.
But this same testimony — this historical connection — though presented to the tribunal
and admitted as evidence, has been willfully undervalued or even ignored by postwar
Japanese historians. Defense counsel William Logan delivered the opening statement for
the general phase on February 25, three months prior to Lazarus’ argument. Logan was
not permitted to read the portion stating that he would be submitting evidence relating to
the Russian invasion of Finland, Russia’s expulsion from the League of Nations, Russia’s
invasion of the Baltic states, Russia’s invasion of Manchuria, and the British and Russian
occupation of Iran. The IMTFE rejected the evidence Logan announced he would bepresenting.
For that very reason the portion of Lazarus’ argument to which I referred, in which hedenounces the USSR, must be cherished because it somehow managed to survive as court
testimony. Historians who keep silent about this matter are panderers who hide behindthe majority judgments handed down by the IMTFE. And to make matters worse, these5

Soviet and Communist sympathizers still maintain the same attitude today, more than 60
years after the Tokyo Trials.
Did Aristides Lazarus, who had attained the rank of first lieutenant in the US Marine
Corps, have strong moral principles? It is true that the president of the tribunal and theprosecution team, impressed by his resolve, allowed Lazarus to read his anti-Communist
statement in its entirety. However, that same Lazarus, in an opening statement for the
China phase on April 22, three weeks earlier, was forbidden to read the end of the
Subdivision II statement entitled “Activities of Chinese Communists and the AntiJapanese Movement.” That portion of the statement was removed from the transcript.
When we examine the excised portion, brought back to life in The Tokyo Trials: The
Unheard Defense, we can read between the lines and discover exactly what historicalterminology was taboo at the IMTFE. The last portion Lazarus was permitted to read
begins as follows:
As already stated, the Chinese Communist Party was constituted under the
direction of the Comintern and was in such an organic relation as to be
directed by the latter. The nature and scope of these directions will be
revealed by evidence.
It will be shown that Japan had reason to fear, and in fact did fear, that the
spread of Communism in China, and then in Japan itself meant Japan’s
destruction.

I find it surprising that the court allowed Lazarus to read even that much. What followed
it, however, he was not permitted to read, and it too was deleted from the transcript.
One look at the map today will show what has happened to Russia’s
neighbors and former neighbors both in Europe and in Asia. The clinchingevidence in support of Japan’s rightful fear of the spread of Communism is
President Truman’s address to the United States Congress last month onthat subject and the desperate measures he recommended to stop its spread.

In this warning is the recognition of a perceived threat from China and the USSR, which
had already influenced the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, initiated by theUS, and later the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between Japan and the US.
The text that follows “One look at the map” makes its point simply and directly; it shouldbe the view that forms the foundation of our current perception of China. The warningbell that sounded more than 60 years ago at the Tokyo Trials has, unfortunately, beenforgotten by far too many Japanese engaged in debates over current perceptions of China.
III. Taboos negate probative strength of My Twenty-five Years in China
I would like to cite another historical resource that was rejected by the court, despite
strenuous efforts on the part of the defense counsel to get passages from it admitted as
evidence. It is a memoir written by John B. Powell, an American journalist who cofounded the China Weekly Review, and entitled My Twenty-five Years in China; the6relevant sections of it deal with the anti-Japanese movement masterminded by the CCP.3
Another book that could have provided useful testimony but, like Powell’s memoirs, wasrejected by the IMTFE, is Twilight in the Forbidden City by Reginald F. Johnston. 4
Fortunately, both books have been translated into Japanese and are available to anyone
who wishes to read them. Powell’s memoir is marred by its anti-Japanese slant, and will
therefore make unpleasant reading for anyone Japanese, including its Japanese translator,
who found it extremely repellent. Powell appeared before the tribunal on August 5 and 6,
1946 as a witness for the prosecution; he gave testimony that benefited the prosecution
and hurt the defendants’ cases (he stated that the Japanese Army had invaded Manchuria).
The defense had high hopes that the passages from his book would be admitted precisely
because it was so virulently anti-Japanese and because it would be perceived as theobjective valuations of a Westerner. In it Powell describes Sino-Soviet relations before
and after the Xian Incident, Zhang Xueliang’s close ties with the CCP, the CCP’s role infanning the flames of the anti-Japanese movement in North China, and other topics ofinterest.
The defense team must have thought that since My Twenty-five Years in China waswritten in English, IMTFE prosecutors and judges could read it without difficulty.
Through it, they would become acquainted with the situation in China, in particular the
Nationalist government’s political organization; and the CCP’s adroit, nefarious strategy
designed to manipulate that government into provoking war with Japan. They thoughtthat it had sufficient probative force to convince readers that the action Japan took tocombat the problem were justified.
In addition to descriptions of the CCP’s anti-Japanese stratagems, also excerpted for
defense purposes were passages that dealt with diplomatic relations between Japan and
China, Soviet intelligence activity in China, the Battle of Shanghai (1937), andMacArthur’s strategy against the Japanese in the Philippines. The number of excerpts
amounted to about 40 (depending on how one counts), but half of them were rejected by
the tribunal. The remainder were not submitted, since the defense attorneys assumed thatthey would be rejected for the same reasons.
Among the reasons given for their rejection in such quick succession were: (1) they weremerely the personal opinions of one newspaper reporter and therefore had no probative
force, and (2) they were the product of the author’s imagination. In some cases rejections
were the result of on-the-spot, unilateral decisions of the chief justice, William Webb;
others represented a majority vote by the prosecution team. One of the reasons given by
representatives of two of the prosecuting nations was distasteful rhetoric in Powell’s
writing. Needless to say, the two nations objecting were China and the USSR. The fact
3

John B. Powell, My Twenty-five Years in China (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1945).

4

Reginald F. Johnston, Twilight in the Forbidden City (Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, 1973).

7

that the objections of a few prosecutors to “distasteful rhetoric” constituted grounds forrejection by the tribunal lays open the abysmal legal standard of this tribunal for all theworld to see.
But that was the reality of the tribunal. The impression that any reference to the dangers
of communist ideology or the conspiracies of the Communist Party was taboo cast a dark
shadow on the minds of the entire Japanese defense team. This explains Dr. Uzawa’s useof “revolutionary changes in the world,” which was in retrospect a rather odd turn ofphrase. But the attorneys must have sensed the irony in the linguistic acrobatics they had
to perform to ensure that their statements could be read in court; it was an expedient they
were forced to use.
The real reasons for Johnston’s and Powell’s books’ being rejected as evidence were two:(1) if they had been admitted as defense evidence, the tribunal’s objective — finding
Japan guilty at all costs — would not have been achieved; and (2) they would haverevealed the truth about the Comintern’s conspiracies to provoke war.
IV. Cover-up continues through postwar era
Thus one function of the IMTFE, the main institution in the Far East determining
responsibility for World War II, was protecting the USSR and the CCP, and concealing
their roles in provoking war with Japan. Incidentally, another major war crime that the
IMTFE rendered taboo and suppressed criticism of was the dropping of atomic bombs by
the US government on Japan — a clear case of indiscriminate, mass murder. I will say nomore about this subject here, since it is not within the purview of this paper.
If I were to speak of another crime — the invasion of neighboring nations by Communist
forces — I would say that the Tokyo Trials accomplished (or came very close toaccomplishing) another goal. That is the creation of a legal fiction, a means forconcealing the crimes of two nations: the USSR, which became an ally of the US with thesigning of the Yalta Agreement (though very temporarily); and the Republic Of China,
then in a state of chaotic anarchy, the perfect excuse for American left-wing intellectuals
to call for ideological “justice” (i.e., side with the Chinese against the Japanese).
While the Allied nations swept aside every single one of their war crimes, none of themever felt even a twinge of guilt regarding the unprecedented, unhappy fate of the Japanese
Empire, saddled with the total responsibility for the devastation of the Pacific War. Onlya handful of nations shared Japan’s indignation at this eventuality, and all were former
colonies of the Western powers, themselves still powerless, swept aside by the maelstromof world history.
It was easy for the US, the driving force behind the Tokyo Trials, to render the Japanesepeople blind, deaf and mute to this irrationality. The very promulgator of theInternational Military Tribune for the Far East, Douglas MacArthur, was the holder of thehighest political authority in Japan, authority exceeding that of both the Japanese
government and the Emperor. Some of his occupation policies may have been patent8

violations of international law in time of war, and his government may have constituted
despotism of the most unforgiveable, inhumane sort in light of universal moral standards.
But the Japanese had been robbed of the freedoms of speech and expression that might
have enabled them to disclose their revelations and issue protests. And with norevelations nor protests, there of course were no such crimes or atrocities.
To cite a specific example relevant to the topic of this paper, on September 29, 1945, thepublications and communications of all of Japan’s media became subject to unilateralregulations imposed by the Occupation forces, i.e., censorship. The censorship guidelines
eventually covered 30 items. The first item, referring to published material (material that
could be expunged or refused publication), was criticism of the Supreme Commander for
the Allied Powers or of the GHQ (General Headquarters). The second was criticism of
the IMTFE.
At that point, it was easy to guess what would follow. Therefore, at the IMTFE
warmongering on the part of Communist forces in the USSR and China was deliberately
covered up or concealed by the profligate rejection of evidence or the refusal to allow
affidavits to be read aloud. No one was permitted to refer to those acts of provocation
until the Occupation ended. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Communists had
never provoked war. The cover-up itself, like all criticism of GHQ policies during the six
years and eight months of Occupation (although the regulations were relaxed to someextent during the latter part of the Occupation, especially after the outbreak of the Korean
War), was relegated to oblivion. It became fixed in the minds of the Japanese people atsome point, and then became subject to a sort of voluntary censorship and a media taboo.
Even today, more than 60 years after Japan was restored to independent nation status, thescars of that taboo are still visible. In other words, we were living in an environment thatprevented us from expressing anger at or hatred of the evils perpetrated by Communist
ideology. That environment has for the most part been dispelled, but for certain reasons,
one still senses its lingering presence in certain parts of academia.
V. Belated awakening
The blunder made by the IMTFE in concealing Communist provocation of war, came tothe attention of the international community in a surprising way. The mechanism was
MacArthur’s testimony at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 3,
1951.
A sharp difference of opinion had emerged between MacArthur and then President Harry
Truman over the handling of the Korean War. The sharp turn in the fate of an iconic
military man, MacArthur, who had once wielded power in Japan mightier than thegovernment or even the Emperor, was summarily removed from his post, and recalled to
the US, will be remembered by every Japanese alive then.
That on the first day of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, MacArthur statedresolutely when asked why Japan commenced hostilities in the Pacific War, “Their
purpose, therefore, in going to war, was largely dictated by security” is widely
9remembered in Japan, even today. The gist of MacArthur’s self-defense argument had
already been stated at the Tokyo Trials, both by Gen. Tojo Hideki in his eloquent
affidavit intended to counter Chief Prosecutor Joseph Keenan’s charges, and in William
Logan’s closing argument, in which he said that Japan was provoked into a war of selfdefense. This did not come as a surprise to IMTFE scholars who have taken the trouble toexamine rejected defense evidence. But they were certainly deeply moved when the
person with chief responsibility for the IMTFE and for its promulgation finally made astatement at a solemn public venue to the effect that the IMTFE was a failure.
However, for the purposes of this paper, more important than MacArthur’s support ofJapanese acts in its own defense is part of the general’s response to a question posed on
the same day by Richard B. Russell, chairman of the Senate Military Affairs Committee:
It is my own personal opinion that the greatest political mistake we madein a hundred years in the Pacific, was in allowing the Communists to growin power in China.5

This statement expressed the deep remorse an arrogant military hero must have felt when
faced with his past ignorance the moment the Korean War began with the KPA’s (North
Korean People’s Army) crossing the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950. The sentiment
expressed should not be perceived as original thought on his part, however. MacArthurmust certainly have been warned about tolerance for Communists and their machinationsin the US by George Kennan, head of the Policy Planning Staff, when he visited
MacArthur on an inspection tour of Japan. Furthermore, Helen Mears, author of Mirror
for Americans, Japan too indicated that combating the threat of communism was a more
important mission for Japan in the past then it was for present-day US.6 At the time,
MacArthur was angered by Mears’ exhortations to the US to reexamine its past conduct,
and would not permit the book to be translated into Japanese. But before the Occupation
had ended, he was agreeing with Mears and stating as much at a public venue.
Remorse for the US’ greatest diplomatic mistake as indicated by MacArthur, standing
silently by while Communism spread throughout Asia, necessarily includes remorse forhaving allowed the IMTFE to pass over Communist provocation of war without
examination, even to conceal that provocation. Doesn’t it behoove us to say to theAmericans, “Your awakening came too late. Can’t you see that the tragedy of a nation
broken asunder on the Korean peninsula is the result of your failure to understand Japan’s
desperate efforts to prevent the spread of Communism?” But do we have the right tocondemn the Americans for their slow-wittedness?
Censorship and confiscation were clever methods used by GHQ used to suppress and5Richard H. Rovere and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., General MacArthur and President Truman:
The Struggle for Control of American Foreign Policy (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers, 1992), p. 191.
6

Helen Mears, Mirror for Americans, Japan (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1948).

10

control speech and expression during the postwar era. However, there were books in thelibraries of individuals that escaped the censors’ watchful eyes. Those works contained
useful information: the penetrating insight of George Kennan, the prophesies of former
US ambassador to China John V. MacMurray, as well as Helen Mears’ deeply insightfulcontemplation. But because they were hidden, most of the Japanese population was
ignorant of their existence until writers emerged who could make use of them, anddescribe the role of Communist ideology and thought wars in the making of Showa era
history. One of those works was War and Communism by Mitamura Takeo; it was
published in 1950, shortly before the Korean War broke out.
In 1950 GHQ’s censorship system was not as strict as when it was first implemented.
However, since there were a good number of American Communists working for GHQ,
Mitamura’s book got caught up in the censorship web, and was taken off the market.
Only a few copies were in circulation at that point. Even after the peace treaty was signed,
signaling the end of the Occupation, and Japan once again enjoyed freedom of expression,
War and Communism was not republished immediately, probably because the media’s
self-imposed restrictions were still at work. Therefore I suppose we would be remiss tocondemn the Americans for their delayed awakening to the perils of Communism.
Mitamura’s book did not appear until 1987, when it was issued as part of the Jiyu Sensho
series. By then it had a new title, Pacific War and Stalin’s Intrigue. At the back of the
new edition are brief essays supplied (for the 1950 publication) by 10 intellectuals andpoliticians. Some of them are simply dutiful compliments; others express genuine
surprise, and still others are creditable reviews of Mitamura’s writing. The book is worth
reading for these essays alone. However, the problem here is the fact that during the 37
years between 1950, when the book was censored, and 1987, when it was reprinted, thebook’s warnings never reached the ears of Japan’s intellectuals. Thus the prevailing
atmosphere of what is referred to as the Tokyo Trials historical perception, one of theaftereffects of the IMTFE, made it possible for the tribunal to conceal Communist
warmongering, and very effectively so.
In the preface to Pacific War and Stalin’s Intrigue, Mitamura writes the following:
I do not insist that those who were duped by Communist warmongering
conspiracies, or who willingly cooperated with the Communists,
acknowledge their roles. But if they say, “I didn’t know” or “I did notagree,” then they are only revealing their ignorance and lack of principles.
[Italics supplied.]

Beginning with the August 1 Declaration in 1935, the CCP’s war against Japan has a long
history. During that time, the Communists have resorted to a wide variety of tactics, andassumed many disguises, but their war against Japan continues relentlessly. And as longas there are Japanese who are willing to humor them (or are too ignorant to know better),
Mitamura’s warning will not lose one iota of its relevance. In closing, I would like towarn those responsible for our state affairs that that sort of ignorance and impotence areevils of the worst sort.

11*******
Kobori Keiichiro was born in Tokyo in 1933. A graduate of Tokyo University, he taught
at his alma mater and at the Humanities Faculty of Meisei University. Professor Kobori’s
specialties are comparative culture and the history of Japanese thought. Among his many
publications are The Early Days of Mori Ogai (recipient of the Yomiuri Prize for
Literature), Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro (recipient of the Oya Soichi Nonfiction
Award), Farewell to the Tokyo Trials Historical Perception, and The Japanese Spirit in
Waka Poetry.

12