July 10, 2019
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The emphasis within the text, apart from the headings, is mine.
[Not Just Money, but Lives and Livelihoods]
It was not only money: many people also lost their lives or livelihoods in the course of the postwar settlement.
The number of people arrested on suspicion of war crimes far exceeded 10,000, and more than 1,000 were executed following military trials.
As for executions carried out without due process, the number is entirely unknown.
In addition, more than 200,000 people were purged from their positions by May 1948.
This extended not only to cabinet ministers and civil servants but also to private companies, and film directors, writers, and others were purged as well.
Are they saying that even this is still not enough?
[An Issue That Has Been Fully Settled]
Japan made great sacrifices in carrying out its postwar settlement, returned to the international community, and established diplomatic relations with other countries.
In other words, the postwar issues with those countries have been settled.
Japan accepted punishment and paid reparations as demanded, and the other countries accepted this and established diplomatic relations.
Why are these countries criticizing Japan now, after all this time?
If they had grievances, should they not have raised them during the reparations negotiations or the negotiations to establish diplomatic relations?
The point is that Japan developed and became prosperous beyond their expectations.
I believe their intention is to use the war as a reason to extract money from Japan and to make it submit psychologically as well.
But why is it necessary to engage directly with parties that make further claims after everything has been settled?
If these countries raise war-related issues, the Japanese government should produce the past treaties and firmly reject their demands on the grounds that everything has already been settled.
As can be seen from the membership of the UN Security Council, the framework established by the victorious powers remains in effect.
Under these circumstances, it is dangerous to respond to criticism by arguing what is right.
This is because they will not abandon the formulation that Japan is evil and the victorious powers are good.
Therefore, the only option is to rely on past treaties and similar agreements, which are clear for all to see, and maintain that the issues have been settled.
The Japanese government must not argue over the rights and wrongs of the matter.
The private sector, however, is a different matter.
I believe the media, journalists, the world of public discourse, and individuals should actively point out the contradictions and falsehoods in criticism of Japan.
Today, the Internet and videos provide effective means of making that case.
I believe confidential government funds should be used to conduct counter-propaganda using these means.
This article continues.