But they might be better to call “Reformation”.

The first one was Meiji Reformation. The second one was Postwar Reformation.

These reformations, however, were conducted by foreign(USA) initiative rather than

domestic initiative. The first one was occurred in 1864 when Japan opened the country toward

world by the pressure of 4 big black ships with USA Capatain Peruli on board.

The second one was occurred in 1945 that Japanese government was forced to carry out

reformation along with the instructions of GHQ leaded by general D.Machrthur.

However, these changes did not deserve revolution and they were only reformation at most.

Japanese have not experienced any revolution which was based on their own voluntary will and accompanied by so much bloodshed as the British or the French.

Lance:

I read with interest your essay concerning "Comfort Women."

I don't think the facts are in dispute. There is ample evidence that women of many races were

abused. Not only by the Japanese, but also by the Chinese, Americans, British, and the

French. Unfortunately, these crimes happen during any war. It is interesting that the French

and the Japanese agree that providing sexual satisfaction for their troops is important, the

French experience in Indochina with mobile brothels is a good example.

The British and American military tend to ignore this subject altogether and consequently are faced with the problem of

rapes committed by members of their commands. The recent rape of a little girl in Okinawa

by Marines stationed there is an example, and I support the death penalty in such cases.

Yoshimura：

Thank you for your information which I have not know yet.

I first know about "mobile brothels" in Indochina from your Email.

It is now in dispute in Japan whether Japanese government committed for recruiting Comfort

woman.

It is impossible to think that these recruiting were carried out only by private traders.

I think that the government or the military must have commitment for this matter to some

degree.

However, Japanese government has not yet clarified its responsibility fully.

Lance:

I think the real issue is compensation. How do you compensate someone for a lost or tainted

life? How much money should a government, when found responsible, be required to pay? The

reality of the situation is that no matter what compensation is offered, it won't be considered

"enough."

Greed takes over when lawyers enter the issue.

Yoshimura：

Compensation for the women is now being carried out mainly by private funds established

mainly by Japanese business circles.

The Korean government is severely opposing such a way of compensation because it make the responsibility of

Japanese government vague and make the government possible to flee from

practicing concrete measures for the women.

However, the women were getting older and some reluctantly accepted some money from the

private fund. These are the situations now I suppose.

Lance：

Governments should be held accountable for the damage they cause in a war.

I think it is a strong part of the determent to starting one in the first place.

Is there an appropriate forum to ask military leaders of the time, and their subordinates, how

they acquired the services of these women?

Yoshimura：

Most Japanese tend to forget instantly past.

Many Japanese were aroused of these issues through movement in 1980s by Asian war victims.

I think that forum for military leaders should have been Tokyo Trials having judged war criminals in 1946.

But the issue of comfort women was not on argument of the Tokyo Trials strangely.

I do not know why they passed over it.

I doubt about the fairness of Tokyo Trials in which the winner judged the defeated.

I would like to hear about honest thought of general American people about dropping atomic

bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki where many civilians were killed for a moment in 1945.

Lance:

My personal opinion is that using those weapons was necessary to prevent further loss of

American, British, and Australian lives. In particular, the prospect of a protracted ground war

on the main Japanese islands justified their use. I offer one simple proof of the

appropriateness of the decision.

Japan surrendered immediately and without condition.

Yoshimura：

Do you think it could be balanced with Pearl Harbor?

I have no intention to make you angry.

On the contrary, I think we must appreciate USA for reforming Japan to democratic society

and leading us successfully in many aspects.

I am only curious about the consciousness of general American people about these issues.

Sorry, topics become too stiff.

Lance:

I don't think revenge played any part in the decision. I think the potential loss of a million

men, and an unknown number of civilian casualties (in fact, saving Japanese lives) made the

decision necessary.

I did not mean to sound "stiff" in my last message.

Your willingness to openly discuss these matters is very valuable to me.

Yoshimura:

Shortly before being bombed on Hiroshima Nagasaki, Japanese government was searching the

way how to surrender to Allies Nation.

To make Japanese government hesitate to surrender was not defeat in the Pacific War but "coup d’etat"

by domestic group opposing to surrender.

Before being bombed, the Japanese Government had already decided to surrender and they were

on the stage of measuring the timing of surrender.

Considering such a situation, I think atomic bombs were not necessary to make Japan defeated.

However, only God knows.

Anyone can not say precisely about this problem.

Lance：

This is very interesting. I'll do some more research on this subject. I currently understand the situation this way:

The government of Japan was basically defeated and the commanders in the

Pacific saw the invasion as the next logical step in forcing a surrender. It did not appear

likely that the Japanese government would, in the end, surrender without a protracted fight.

If, as you say, the government of Japan was ready and looking for the right moment,

then it is a tragedy that they waited so long to communicate that to the U.S. and it's allies.

Yoshimura：

Please keep in mind that Japan is a society which needs unanimous approval and take long

time to make a decision.

As long as there is an opposition, persuasion would be continued until attaining unanimous approval.

Surely, the war ended immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki as you said.

However, was there truly any other method to make Japan finish the war?

Was dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the only way to beat Japan?

If you relate on communication, I think it was a tragedy that US government did not inform

enough Japanese government of destructive power of "New Type Bomb".

Enough warning of destructive power of "New Type Bomb" has possibility to avoid tragedy in

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However, in this case, the defeat of Japan would have been possibly "defeat with some conditions " instead of "defeat without condition".

Frankly speaking, I have a doubt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was sacrificed by the strategy

of US government for Socialistic Countries at that time.

I think that the another object of bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was demonstration

toward Soviet Union.

I am wondering whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the places of experiment of "New Type

Bomb" in some sense.

Anyway, I think that war can not be clean and that there is no justice on any side of the

victor and the defeated.

Lance:

It is possible that even if your government had made such a communication, it would have been

viewed with some skepticism. Trust is very hard to come by under those circumstances.

It would probably be seen as a trick because the Japanese had fought so hard, for so long.

I would not be surprised to learn that following the first bomb, some communication from

Japan indicated a willingness to discuss terms was received. And it fell on deaf ears.

I don't think Japan would have surrendered unconditionally without the use of force. But there

was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan.

If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have

had a negotiated peace."

Yoshimura：

The Emperor "Tenno" had been the god for Japanese until the defeat in the Pacific War.

The surrender of Japan meant that the god was defeated.

In other words, it resulted that the image of Tenno collapsed in the mind of all Japanese.

All officials of the government must have been afraid that the confusion and anarchism would

spread over entire nation.

The main reason why they prolonged their decision to accept defeat is because it was a delicate

issue touching on the basis of Japan and Japanese as I mentioned above.

There must have been also a danger of "coup d’etat ".

The meaning of "measuring timing of defeat" I mentioned before is that even if they

would have surrender, they were thinking whether there was any room to draw out some

advantageous conditions from Allied Nations, exchanging for acceptance of Japan's defeat.

However, the shocks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as you know, made government officials impossible

to expect any conditions, having faced overwhelming military power of USA.

However, for general people, the direct reason of acceptance of defeat is not only shock of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the announcement of Tenno.

"Tenno" himself announced also he was merely an ordinary human being on radio in 1945.

I wonder whether the announcement of Tenno was more shocking than Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

But Japanese surprisingly did not lose respects for him, instead of thinking of him betrayer.

I do not know enough about the mind of people at that time.

Lance:

It was, perhaps, the complete (as complete as any non-native could) understanding of the relationships between the Emperor, the military, and the people that led to the decision.

A whole new set of rules was needed.

Those relationships needed to change in a fundamental way. I think that this made the humiliation of the Emperor served as notice to everyone that things were going to change radically.

Yoshimura：

Let me state one more issue about war criminals .

Main Japanese war criminals were sentenced to death at Tokyo Trials(in 1947)

Recently ,some Japanese companies continuing to supply the blood products with fear of containing

HIV virus has been on public criticism and are accused now.

One of the name of the pharmaceutical companies which caused some hundred deaths

from blood products is "Green Cross".

"Green Cross" was established by the doctors who carried out cruel tests by using living body

of Chinese during the World War.

After the war, their crimes were hidden and forgotten, exchanging for giving their test data to US Government.

As a result, these issues were not at all on argument at Tokyo Trials Court.

This matter make us think about the character of Tokyo Trials.

Lance:

The Tokyo Trials were, in part, a show.

McAurthur kept them from going too far.

I am very familiar with Unit 731 and the commander, Ishii.

What is difficult to understand is how the "Doctors" could treat another human being that

way. We, Americans, have our own atrocities to account for, and the penalties should be

extreme.

An interesting source of information is located at:

http://www.cs.umn.edu/~dyue/wiihist/germwar/germwar.htm

I find it ironic that both of our respective governments, or their agents, have committed these

atrocities, and more, only to condemn these practices by others. Agreements exist that outlaw

such treatment and I think most soldiers try to obey the laws. I have to wonder about Unit

731 and it's "Doctors" though... How could a Doctor, someone dedicated to healing, cut a

helpless man open without compassion?

Do your students learn about the various occupations of China, Korea, the Philippines, etc. of

Japan? I would also be interested in knowing what they think about Unit 731 and it's activities.

Yoshimura：

I appreciate for your comment on 731unit.

Stirred by your email, I added one page titled "CROSS" on my homepage.

Japanese tend to incorporate themselves entirely into the organization they belong.

The order of organization is absolute for them and individual conscience tend to be back off

completely.

I think Western people tend to resist orders against their wills because they are supported more

or less by faith for God.

I think they can keep personal ethics more than Japanese.

Japanese students in general do not learn so much about the occupations of Japan in Asian countries.

There is no school textbook that describes about 731 unit explicitly.

When I teach students about the war, I give emphasis on Japan's aggression rather than

Its damage or harm.

I talked students a little about 731 unit once to let students know the casualties of Asian people by Japanese military.

Students seemed to be curious about only cruelty of germ tests by 731 doctors.

It is easy to attack outrageous activities of 731 unit but it is very difficult to explain enough

why they engaged in such activities.

I can talk at most that human being is weak and become a devil, depending on circumstances

and let students think about how to keep their human mind, whatever the circumstances might

be.

I am not so confident in teaching these historical facts on 731unit to students.

Lance:

My father was also a soldier. During the Korean War he was in the 2nd Infantry Division.

He taught me to examine history very carefully and to draw my own conclusions because someone is

always trying to re-write it one way or another to suit their own desires. The

trouble I find is there is so much of it to study, and much of it must be taken on faith

(we must accept what is written, or not, often without enough information to rationally decide).

I didn't hear their voices or see their faces as they told their tale. How should I judge?

Yoshimura：

I always feel the same trouble as you do on learning history.

More than that, Japanese are now trouble in interpreting their past as an entire nation.

I think that this is a very serious problem not only for today's political situation but for

nation's future in Japan.

Lance:

I agree. This is, perhaps, Japan's biggest challenge.

By the way, the relationship of the people to the government and the Corporate structure began

to change while I was there in the early eighties. Some businessmen were starting their

own companies, outside of the parent/child company structure.

Lifetime employment was still most prevalent. Blue suits, white shirt, subtle tie was the rule.

But I think this is changing. I also think that once change has begun, the rate of change increases very

quickly as more and more people leave the old path.

＜参考＞

NOH mask 能面

Meiji Reformation 明治維新

4 big black ships 黒船

D.Machrthur ダグラス・マッカ−サ−

Pearl Harbor 真珠湾

Defeat without condition 無条件降伏

731 unit 731細菌部隊