Comments:Japan's Air Self-Defense chief fired over essay on wartime history

The requirement that the Japanese state accept responsibility for the war is valid on a moral level, at least for their majority part. However, analysis of the precise events leading to the violence is also appropriate. Other nations should accept moral responsibility for their minor parts too, KMT in Taiwan especially. Making Japan solely responsible was a diplomatic solution after the war, and was absolutely appropriate during the reconstruction to safeguard against nationalists regaining power. There does need to be a reevaluation with greater historical perspective now but that is the job of historians not SDF officials. The way I see this the biggest part is the limitation on the use of force by Japan and the implications that reevaluation can have on changing where that limit actually is. I believe Japan should exercise more of its strength to help all people. While there is no place for an expansionist Japan there are a lot of situations where Japan could do more to help resolve conflicts and protect refugees while keeping its resolve for peace. 65.1.135.117 14:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While there is nothing wrong with re-evaluating the past, there simply isn't argument to excuse Japan's full responsibility in her aggression. To say that Japan was somehow "forced" into the war by either the USA or the KMT is to ignore the fact that Japan had been a colonial aggressor long before the wars.  Yes, by the start of the conflict we could reasonably say that Japan had few options other than plunging herself into the war, but the Japanese militarist government had driven herself to this point with very little help from other nations.  And to even suggest Japanese occupiasion as benevolent is simply an insult on the colonized and the clear-minded.
 * That said, I agree that Japan should be able to excercise her power for the "greater good", whatever that may be. And I think the Japanese people needs to recover their confidence lost through the wars.  Just as Germany was able to fully regain her military importance and identity, Japan can as well.  But the Japanese revisionists' approach to this -- through denial of the past -- simply isn't the way to go.  Only by fully accepting Japan's past evils can she re-emerge without the baggage that weighs her down still. 92.128.98.46 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

transcript of essay
do you have a link to the essay in english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.200 (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of one. Sorry, --SVTCobra 22:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He earned it. Denial of history is a very bad habit for a Defense Minister - Lex
 * I don't think General Tamogami is denying that Japan is in many ways responsible for the Pacific War, but even modern Japanese history is much much longer than that. I think there is some real merit to the idea that as bad as the Japanese occupation became later on, it was still a step in improving residents quality of life. As bad as it appears now to contemporary eyes, when compared to the history of these areas in the years before their occupation there are improvements. Korea was basically a slave to China paying tribute to prevent invasion and destruction. The modest improvements can not excuse Japan's later bad actions, but in the same vein completely dismissing those improvements because of those bad actions is shortsighted at best. 72.146.170.54 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

no

No More "Holy" War for a Japan-directed Greater Asia
Yes, no doubt about it.

Do you think that the government was right to fire General Tamogami?
I believe that the Japanese government has overreacted over alphabetical letters and puntuation marks. An essay is just an essay.