The narrative foundation of Okinawa Notes rests on “The Typhoon of Steel,” a poorly sourced account published by the Okinawa Times.
This essay argues that uncritical repetition of such claims amounts to political exploitation of history.
The responsibility lies with the author and the media that amplified the falsehood.

2016-04-02
What follows is a continuation of the previous chapter.
This concerns the crime of politically exploiting the “Okinawa issue” by Kenzaburō Ōe and the Asahi Shimbun.
There are signs that the injunction lawsuit over Okinawa Notes may end in Ōe’s defeat, but that is not the core issue.
The Nobel laureate dislikes Japan.
When people of unclear background criticize Japan, it can often be attributed partly to envy.
However, it is difficult to comprehend the mindset of a Japanese writer who takes pleasure in disparaging his own country.
Ōe is a novelist and a Nobel Prize winner.
Though he appears respectable, he boasts that he rejected the Japanese government’s offer to honor his achievements, flaunting his dislike of Japan.
Perhaps he believed this posture would make him appear progressive.
Or perhaps he calculated that such a stance would please the Asahi Shimbun, invite praise, and boost book sales.
Such self-serving behavior may be distasteful, but it is his choice.
What is unacceptable is lying for the sake of that posture.
In Okinawa Notes, published by Iwanami Shoten, he wrote that Japanese military commanders ordered mass suicide among civilians on Tokashiki and Kerama Islands.
The narrative foundation of this account is “The Typhoon of Steel,” written by the unreliable Okinawa Times.
It claimed that as U.S. attacks intensified, Commander Akamatsu ordered residents to commit suicide,
that all islanders were commanded to die praying for the empire and Japan’s victory,
and that on Zamami Island, Commander Umezawa ordered a suicidal charge in front of a war memorial before the U.S. landing.
In conclusion, this story was false from beginning to end.
To be continued.