The controversy of Yasukuni Shrine
The entry of Germany and Japan into World War II was inspired by greed and evil intentions by their respective leaders of that time.
After the war ended, Germany did not take long to acknowledge their heinous past. Some examples include Holocaust monuments, laws to criminalise Holocaust denials and history books detailing the uncomfortable past. They even agreed not to play their national anthem when hosting Israel’s delegations, as it was also the anthem of Nazi Germany.
Germany’s defeat was portrayed as a “win” for it ended Nazi rule and allowed the country to begin its peaceful transition into a trusted European power we know today.
The same could not be said for Japan, although the war has ended almost 80 years ago.
If there is one word to describe the difference in the mentality of the Germans and the Japanese, it is “Yasukuni”.
What is Yasukuni Shrine?
Yasukuni Shrine is a Shinto shrine located in Chiyoda district in Tokyo, a short walk from the Kudanshita Station. In the Shinto religion, a shrine is meant to pray for the souls of the dedicated individual(s) enshrined there. Once enshrined, you are elevated to a godly status thus allowing people to pray in their names.
If you have not read about this before, I will now explain why Yasukuni Shrine remains a controversial site today.
Yasukuni Shrine was founded by Emperor Meiji in 1869 to enshrine those who died in the early wars. All together, 2.5 million souls were enshrined at Yasukuni.
Literally, Yasukuni’s Japanese name (靖国神社) means a “peaceful country shrine”. We can accept that soldiers on both sides were all victims and it is not controversial that ordinary fallen soldiers deserve a memorial site.
The Yasukuni controversy
The controversy of Yasukuni started to evolve in 1959. Over a 6-year period, 984 convicted “Class B” and “Class C” war criminals were enshrined in Yasukuni. Crimes against humanity, such as genocide or the Nanking massacre were “Class C” crimes while the more usual war crimes, such as shooting helpless prisoners, were “Class B” war crimes (“The Atlantic”).
But don’t be deceived by the seemingly low classification — these 984 men were murderers and were convicted by war crimes tribunals.
To take the cake, Japan enshrined 14 “Class A” war criminals at Yasukuni in 1978. The charges brought at these 14 men were for crimes against peace. All of them were convicted at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, which concluded in 1947.
The best known of these 14 criminals is the former Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, who initiated the war against China, US and Britain. For the full list of the “Class A” war criminals, you can refer to this article.
Although there had been some academic criticism that the Tokyo trial was not of “gold standard”, one should not forget that the established legal protocols have been applied.
· The criminals were all legally represented, the majority by Japanese lawyers.
· More than 400 witnesses were called and more than 4000 pieces of evidence were admitted.
· The trials took 2 ½ years to conclude, with the judgements surely running into thousands of pages.
Since then, we have seen Japanese prime ministers making regular visits or presented offerings at Yasukuni. Each episode would provoke protests from China, South Korea and North Korea.
In the eyes of Japan’s neighbours, enshrining these war criminals at Yasukuni gave the view that they were not remorseful of entering into World War II. This short video not only explains the controversy outside Japan but domestic opposition as well.
In my view, what is more controversial about the shrine is the museum located within its premises. The museum is named Yūshūkan (遊就館), which is ironic in my view because the literal translation is “Place to commune with a noble soul”.
A large military train and artillery runs adorns the museum entrance. Upon entering, visitors would be exposed to a considerably large area dedicated to the war equipment used by the Japanese imperial forces. This seemed to be at odds with a place of worship. A first-time visitor could have mistaken for entering into a war museum!
I do credit the museum for presenting the human stories well, such as the photos of all the fallen soldiers at World War II and the numerous letters written by the soldiers to their families.
What is more difficult to accept is the attempt to either eliminate or mitigate Japan’s guilt in the war crimes. I will now cite several examples.
Example 1 — The failure to cite Japan’s role in starting the various wars
For example, there was no mention that the Pearl Harbor attack was a calculated move to allow Japan to invade Southeast Asia. Another exhibit said that the Manchurian campaign started because off an “anti-Japanese movement”.
Example 2 — False justification of ending Western colonialism in Japanese occupied territories
There were fleeting mentions of this narrative but the most daring one has to be a certificate from “Indian National Army” (INA), which said that the INA was “grateful” to the Japanese martyrs who died for “India’s liberation”.
(The INA was an armed unit to collaborate with the Japanese forces to free India from British rule. It is founded in Singapore and is an interesting piece of Singapore’s Japanese Occupation history not known to many. But this is a story for another day.)
Example 3 — Claiming Japan wanted Korea to be independent
This is a bit rich considering that Japan occupied Korea in 1910 (some 30 years before World War II started) with the colonisation ending only in 1945, after Japan’s defeat by the Allied.
Example 4 — Implied innocence of war crimes committed by the Japanese forces
This was done in a very subtle manner via some letters written by the convicted war criminals, implying there were innocent or evidence was tainted.
What is not so subtle is the tribute paid to Radhabinod Pal, the sole judge from India who gave the dissenting judgement in the Tokyo trial. This is done by his portrait and a memorial in the gardens (which comes with accompanying stories in Japanese but with no English translation).
What is not mentioned is the undisputed facts proving that war crimes of an industrial scale were committed. Justice Pal questioned the legitimacy of the trial but not the facts.
In addition, there was no mention of the war crimes committed. After all the massacres, rape and torture — not a word, much less a monument.
The Singapore theatre in Yasukuni….and my conclusion
Interestingly, the museum made mention of the Southeast Asia campaign and very specifically, the surrender of Singapore by the British at the Ford Factory.
And they even displayed the “banana money”, which were the Japanese currency notes printed and circulated freely during the Japanese Occupation. I never thought that this artefact so close to our hearts to be displayed at Yasukuni!
An infamous character we know every well is also displayed there. In our shores, Gen Tomoyoki Yamashita is well-known as the Japanese general who supervised the conquer of Singapore in a week. He is the “Tiger of Malaya” as we were taught in school — fierce, ruthless and decisive.
Actually, Gen Yamashita would later supervise the Philippines campaign and he was only specifically mentioned in that campaign, and not the Malayan one.
After the Philippines campaign, he was tried by the Americans in Manila solely for war crimes committed in the Philippines. In other words, he was never officially convicted of war crimes committed in Singapore. As a purist, I still find this as a gap though at least, he paid the ultimate price.
During the visit, I paid my due respects at the shrine with my Japanese friend. One should not forget that the war criminals constitute just a small percentage of those enshrined.
Japan suffered heavily in the war and their soldiers were brave and often fight to the end (read Midway, Okinawa, etc). Their civilian sufferings were immense and unfortunately, were aggravated due to the delay by their leaders to surrender.
I was just advised by a history teacher that “history is all about perspectives”. A history lover should not neglect the other perspectives, which we may not necessarily agree with, but necessary in order to deepen our appreciation.
