'Yasukuni' opens under heavy security; gets mixed reaction

Looks like an interesting movie. Nice comments by some of the viewers, runs quite contrary to those who would have you believe every single Japanese person is a war mongering, facist, bigoted ignoramus.

I have never been able to understand why the Japanese cannot have a memorial to their war dead and other countries can.

So what, if they started WWII and enslaved Koreans and massacred Korean and Chinese civilians, including women, children and new-born babies. This is a shrine to the memory of the soldiers, not the despicable deeds of a few. The United States has Arlington National, why can't the Japanese have Yasukuni?

Japan might be better off if they followed Germany's example and denounced those who were responsible, made reparations to the comfort women, and apologized to the Asian countries where they committed these atrocities, especially, Korea and China and put it behind them once and for all.

Absent that, this Yasukuni thing to drag on and on and on with no end in sight. The Japanese government owes it to the memory of the soldiers they purport to honor to end this silly controversy.

These kids, (and they were mostly kids) deserve a lot better, than they are getting from these self-serving, greedy politicians whose only interest is getting reelected while they take take care of their buddies and families at the public expense.

In a true free and democratic country like Japan,all Japanese citizens should be able to see this movie and learn something about their past without any physical interference from any one,extreme nationalists included.I,too,want to see this movie.

The United States has Arlington National, why can't the Japanese have Yasukuni?Japan might be better off if they followed Germany's example and denounced those who were responsible

comparing yasukuni and arlington cemetery is ridiculous. the main contention is the 14 convicted class A war criminals enshrined in Yasukuni. Imagine the ruckus if Hitler had a resting place in Berlin and German politicians visited it to pay respects once a year. far stretched analogy but is an idea of the reason why there is so much hatred

I have never been able to understand why the Japanese cannot have a memorial to their war dead and other countries can.

I don't think anyone is saying that Japan can't honor it's war dead.

This is a shrine to the memory of the soldiers, not the despicable deeds of a few.

Uh...ahem:

...the shrine itself, which has a museum depicting Japan’s wartime conquests as a noble enterprise...

If it was simply shrine to the dead, I can't imagine anyone complaining. Well, no one worth taking seriously, anyway.

Japan might be better off if they followed Germany's example and denounced those who were responsible, made reparations to the comfort women, and apologized to the Asian countries where they committed these atrocities, especially, Korea and China and put it behind them once and for all.

Bingo.

There's no reasonable criticism to be leveled at people who simply want to honor those who fought for their country. However, if they try to sneak in apologist junk like this, they're going to catch Hell. They should catch Hell.

If honoring their dead was the actual goal, the "noble enterprise" part of the deal would vanish. This is not about honoring the dead, this is about using them to legitimize slimy, nationalist garbage.

This is why separation of Church and state is a good idea

Where is it playing in Kyoto?

Have you been to the museum? It's hilariously biased; apparently the Chinese "invited" the Imperial Army into Nanking, so that they could better protect the citizenry. Bet you didn't know that.

Commie-China propaganda garbage. More they bash Japan and make her feel sorry, more money they'll get beyond 40 or so billion dollars that Japan has already coughed up for China as de facto war-time reparations (, which no doubt has been funding Commie-China's military expansion--allowing them to afford not only the nuclear missiles aimed at Japan but also the atomic subs that can launch nuclear attack wherever in the world.). The most sickening thing is that this commie-China propaganda is partly funded by the Japanese government. It's been reported that the filmmakers have filmed/acquired some footage using various unethical methods, but this is not a surprise at all given who's behind this film.

It's also quite interesting that some of you, who are quick to denounce China when China takes the stance against the U.S. (e.g. suing of CNN for "hurting Chinese people's feelings") are quick to take China's side by jumping on the blame-nationalist bandwagon on issues over 60 years old. What hypocrisy, self-righteousness and double standard.

To put this in perspective, one might think who has the best track record of not making war in past 60 years? Not China and certainly not the United States. Not only do they not demonstrate beyond doubt that they are truly sorry (as many of you are quick to blame Japan of not doing), they are repeatedly demonstrating that they don't give a f***, as they make war to serve their own selfish interests. I am hard time believing that the invasions and indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians done by China and the United States are honorable and righteous.

Zflag,

Have you even seen the movie yet? If not, how can you possibly call it garbage?

comparing yasukuni and arlington cemetery is ridiculous. the main contention is the 14 convicted class A war criminals enshrined in Yasukuni. Imagine the ruckus if Hitler had a resting place in Berlin and German politicians visited it to pay respects once a year. far stretched analogy but is an idea of the reason why there is so much hatred

That is merely your double-standard and naivety speaking. Do you have objections to visiting the resting places of aggressive leaders who waged war prior to the establishment of the offence of Crimes of Against Peace, such as the extravagant Les Invalides which houses the sarcophagus of Napoloen? or the tombs of Jacksonian Democrat Presidents such as Andrew Jackson himself, who rapidly pushed the boundaries of the United States displacing and killing Native Americans and Spanish settlers along the way in the name of Manifest Destiny?

I put it to you to either, denounce the visits to the resting places of these western leaders or resile from what you have written, otherwise kiss your credibility goodbye.

denounce the visits to the resting places of these western leaders

Denounce what visits? When? By whom?

You might want to try sticking to the issue, which is Yasukuni.

Zflag,if you already watched this movie and think it is garbage,then throw it in the bin;others may think differently and that is wonderful about freedom of speech which communist China does not have but Japan does.If Japan stands firm on the ground of human rights,freedom ,democracy; one or two or hundred Yasukuni movie will not make any dent on Japanese spirit.That means Japan is fully mature first class nation that feel comfortable about its past and confident in its future.And that is a Japan I want to see.

Denounce what visits? When? By whom?

You might want to try sticking to the issue, which is Yasukuni.

I've still got it :P

Jamal 2008

That is merely your double-standard and naivety speaking. Do you have objections to visiting the resting places of aggressive leaders blah blah blah...

Er, there's aggressive and aggressive. Plenty of countries, leaders, etc. have taken other countries over. That whole "Rape Of Nanking" thing, and including convicted war criminals in the shrine is what gets people bunched up.

There's also visiting and honoring. Two different things. That's why there are two different words for those things. I visited Napoleon's grave. I did not honor him. In fact, my Dad and I spent most of our time either reading up on what a dick he was, or just made short jokes.

If I visit Ghengis Kahn's grave, am I "honoring" him? Seriously, do you need an answer to that?

*To put this in perspective, one might think who has the best track record of not making war in past 60 years? Not China and certainly not the United States. Not only do they not demonstrate beyond doubt that they are truly sorry (as many of you are quick to blame Japan of not doing), they are repeatedly demonstrating that they don't give a f**, as they make war to serve their own selfish interests.

That's a prefect analogy. Because when America honors their war dead, they MAKE SURE they include people like those soldiers who raped a 14 year old girl and set her on fire.

Oh, wait. They don't? You mean they punished them and made damn sure their name would always be spoken with the disgrace it deserves? Well, your analogy is a gigantic steaming pile then, isn't it?

It's also quite interesting that some of you, who are quick to denounce China when China takes the stance against the U.S. (e.g. suing of CNN for "hurting Chinese people's feelings") are quick to take China's side by jumping on the blame-nationalist bandwagon on issues over 60 years old. What hypocrisy, self-righteousness and double standard.

Congratulations! This is possibly the single least logical thing I have ever read on the internet.

Chinese government tries to make nice and people don't buy it.

Japanese war apologists try to make nice and people don't buy it.

You might want to look up the word "hypocrisy" before you get all sweaty about that.

Tell ya what. Since you're all about truth and decency and stuff, maybe you should start a campaign to get those 14 war criminals removed from the shrine. Like I said, nobody (nobody serious, anyway) will complain about honoring war dead. It's those 14 that are causing the problem.

Other countries have bad histories, but generally speaking, they'll distinguish between those who fought for their country and those few individuals who have distinguished themselves as perverted, sadistic criminals. You may well have a point in your rantings somewhere, but stop acting as if Yasukuni is handled and conducted in the same as any other memorial. It isn't. Period.

NeoJamal:

I take that as you not having any answer to my questions. Lay out the visits you object to, the dates, who went, and photographic and/or video proof that they happened and I will concede you the point.

Tell ya what. Since you're all about truth and decency and stuff, maybe you should start a campaign to get those 14 war criminals removed from the shrine. Like I said, nobody (nobody serious, anyway) will complain about honoring war dead. It's those 14 that are causing the problem.

Wrong."Those 14" were part of liberating Asia from the colonialists. They are heroes for all Asians. This must be accepted. Those who argue otherwise are racist against the Japanese and obviously hate asians. They should never be granted visas to be guests in our nation.

TPOJ:

You are exactly 100% correct.

Sometimes people want to go against the grain just for the sake of going against the grain.

I don't think that comparing Yasukuni to Arlington National is ridiculous. The purpose of both of them is to honor the memory of soldiers who have died in defense of their country.

The administration of these memorials should be left to each country as it sees fit. What is wrong with each country being able to choose how it remembers its soldiers who have died in past wars? It helps the families of those who have lost loved ones cope. It is also a source of great pride for many grieving families. What is wrong with that?

I have visited Yasukuni, seen most of the exhibits, read the commentary on the exhibits, watch the movie entitled, "We Will Always Remember What You Guys Did for Us" (My translation. Original title in Japanese, ”私たちは忘れません”　or something to that effect.) and have not seen one inaccurate commentary or statement.

"Propaganda" is misleading and sometimes meaningless word. It all depends on what side of the fence you are standing, and what your self-interests are.

In the times I have visited Yasukuni, I have not seen any statements there that are untrue. The folks responsible for reporting the facts may not report everything, but isn't it Japan's right to report whatever they choose to report as long as it is not inaccurate?

It's Japan's memorial not China's, nor Korea's, nor any of the other countries' that can't seem to mind their own business. Do you ever see Japan stick its nose in the internal affairs of another country?

"Class A War Criminal" is equally as misleading a label as the word "propaganda". It all depends on what side of the fence you are standing, or who is holding a sword at whose throat. The United States invented the label, "Class A War Criminals" for the post-war trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo and it is a label that has stuck.

The post-war trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo were a sham. The reason they were a sham was if the so-called "criminals" had something to offer the Allies, (Actually, the United States. They ran the whole show, as rightfully they should have.) then they were released from prison and sent on their way after they gave the Allies what they needed. The Allies took those who could help them fight the next war (against the Soviet Union) and minimized or ignored what some of those individuals did during WWII if it served the interests of the Allies at that time.

Were these mass pardons right? It all depends on what side of the fence you were standing on at that time. The point is, if the guy with the sword in his hand labeled you a war criminal then a war criminal you were. That was true not only at the trials in Tokyo but in Nuremberg as well.

For example, a few of those who participated in the Wannsee Conference in Berlin in 1942 were given preferential treatment by the U.S. in exchange for information (Hofman & Klopfer et alia) and lived long and productive lives.

Why weren't these guys hanged like the others who participated in the Wannsee Conference? Weren't they equally culpable? They all, (With one exception) participated in the Conference and agreed to support the Holocaust. Don't our rules of Jurisprudence make they just as guilty? Compare the actions of those who participated in Wannsee and the 13 Japanese soldiers labeled, "Class A War Criminals".

I am not trying to excuse the actions of these soldiers labeled "Class A War Criminals" by the United States. (Remember this is the same government that also labeled its own citizens "Non-Alien Residents", rounded them up and sent them to concentration camps based only on their ethnic origin, not on any crimes they may have committed.) I don't know the names of these 13 Japanese soldiers, what these soldiers are accused of doing, nor do I care. Nor do the majority of the Japanese care what they might have done.

The reason this is still an issue is because no Japanese politician is willing to commit political suicide by doing what is needed to be done. What is need to be done is:

Openly denounce the actions of those who ordered the mass murder of Chinese, Korean, and other Asian country's civilians. No need to kick them out of Yasukuni.

Make meaningful reparations to the so-called comfort women who were forced into prostitution and raped by the Japanese soldiers. Make it easy, not hard (As the bureaucracy can well do) for these women to file these claims. Extend a right of survivorship of the claims of these comfort women, to the direct descendants of these women especially if the descendant was fathered by a Japanese soldier in an act of rape. Again, make the evidentiary threshold easy, not hard for those seeking redress.

Recognize that Asian culture in many countries that Japan occupied during WWII views these women with disdain and many of them wrongfully feel shame over what happened to them. To counter this, Japan should let Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and other Asian women not men, run the "Comfort Women Reparations Division" and help these women and their descendants not only receive just reparations, but also help them erase the stigma that has attached to it.

When they denounce those who were guilty of the mass murder of civilians learn to use the words,

"I am very sorry for the terrible things these men did. I am very sorry for all the pain and suffering these men have caused, the people of (Where ever) when these men ordered these terrible acts (name the acts and the dates). We have taken measures that this type of thing will never happen again."

And that should end the whole thing. Because as another fellow-poster has pointed out Japan's post-war record has been stellar, they have through their generous actions said in so many words, I am sorry, the only problem is that there is no politician with enough guts to stand up and say it.

One thing that many people forget is that Yasukuni is a privately owned shrine(has been for quiet some time) and that the japanese goverment has no jurisdiction over it's running. Separation of religion of state, etc.

The Goverment has repeatedly asked the shrine to remove those remains and the shrine has refused every-time. Also when those Class A War-criminals were enshrined it was not done with permission by the than authorities.

The Goverment has been trying for some years now to setup a new war-memorial but has run into problems moving remains from the shrine to the new site and also by families of fallen soldiers that want them to remain at Yasukuni.

This info is readily available on the Net.

Yasukuni is a problem but the japanese goverment is trying to fix it. But is bound as it has no control over what is going on at the shrine.

As for Arlington, etc. The Allieds were never tried for their War-Crimes so it is quiet possible that War-criminals are buried at other national cemeteries. Yet I see know outcry over those cemeteries war-memorials.

It's a good neutral film.

I put it to you to either, denounce the visits to the resting places of these western leaders or resile from what you have written, otherwise kiss your credibility goodbye. hahahaha

You might want to try sticking to the issue, which is Yasukuni.

I've still got it :P

Jamal 2008

<strong>Moderator: Everybody, please stay on topic.</strong>

Wrong."Those 14" were part of liberating Asia from the colonialists. They are heroes for all Asians.

I’m assuming that you are an Asian(Japanese, per se), or a non-Asian who shows at least some sympathy to warmongers and autocratic military dictators for the JP imperial government. You may not be an ultra hard-core right-wing activist, yet your tone in the remark quite resonates with neo-conservative or imperial folks. I’m not gonna pry the secrecy of your identity for your own sake(or your honor), but let me tell you something. If you believe these 14 military dictators are “heroes,” you should bring credible source of evidence that go beyond the lopsided perspectives by conservatives and deniers. Why were these guys stigmatized as Class A War Criminals and executed after WWII? Why do you think many people in other Asian countries keep protesting JP Prime Minister’s worshipping the shrine every year? What is their general perception toward these 14 guys honored in the shrine? You’d better get that these are the issues which most right-wing and conservative sympathizers have failed so far to articulate for defening their very position.

Those who argue otherwise are racist against the Japanese and obviously hate asians.

Very shameless negative tactic of ad-hominem attack frequently used by Japanese ultra conservatives and deniers. Disrespecting those whose perspectives differ from yours due to their dissent does bring you nothing but idiocy and bias. But your statement goes far beyond that. It is a false accusation that piques an insult and harassment. This is the very reason why they are generally distrusted by the Japanese public. Most Japanese have serious problems in engaging the debate/critical discussion, due to the fallacy mentioned above. We usually see this through the temperamental tone of conservative historians and commentators who arrantly deny the atrocities of Japanese imperial army during the wartime(i.e.; the Nanjing Massacre, 3K (burn-all, kill-all, steal-all) operations, sex slaves/comfort women). Regarding this issue, I’m feeling weird a bit now, because I usually see this type of irrational, biased argument in Japanese, rather than in English.

<strong>Moderator: Readers, please keep the discussion focused on the film.</strong>

I heard that large black vans with loudspeakers, Imperial Japanese Army flags and punch-permed drivers in black uniforms are available for hire.

“This is a test for Japan’s ability to overcome the Yasukuni problem and develop a healthy pride and become a truly civilized nation

Yes, exactly! This film director's statement hits the nail right on the head. I haven't seen the film, and I'm not sure if I can see it when I get back to Japan next month. Remember, this is the documentary film- not the typical epic or war movie glorifying your nation for her war legacy or chanting anti-Japanese sentiment. The shrine is, without a doubt, the structure of controversial memory, because it stirs up the rhetorical ambivalence between nostalgia and guilt. It involves both pros and cons, pacifists and nationalists, civilian war victims and former soldiers, etc. This Chinese director, through his documentary film, is urging us to go beyond the mere cherishment of affective/defective discourses produced from the materiality of structure (I mean, the Shrine).

Whats wrong with Japan celebrating its heritage just because some of it is military? Silly lefties want to ignore the past and lie about everything in case someones FEELINGS might be hurt. rolls eyes.

Military IS history and defines the nations borders. Simple.

Want to be civilized? Then celebrate your military.

rjdsr,

."Those 14" were part of liberating Asia from the colonialists. They are heroes for all Asians. This must be accepted. Those who argue otherwise are racist against the Japanese and obviously hate asians. They should never be granted visas to be guests in our nation.

Nice try, pal. But the fish don't seem to be biting. You've got to be a lot more subtle if you really want to fool people into thinking you actually believe this kind of stuff.

Zen Builder: Very informative, didn't know it was privately owned and the the J-Gov tried to get those guys removed.

One thing I want to add as that what is fact is only fact based off one's research. Personally, for those that liked the film, good on you but even for those that didn't like the film, good on you. Just because someone wants to point out something that had happened 60 years ago doesn't make it 100%. It is clear that the director only want to point out the negative. Ok, so let's see how his future works are done.. Will he be equally objective in pointing out war crimes across the board, including his own native country? If no, then all he has put out was something to make Japanese people guilty.. Yes, I do mean his future works will either boost this film or diminish it.

Silly lefties want to ignore the past and lie about everything in case someones FEELINGS might be hurt. rolls eyes.

Ditto on the irrational right-wings. Actually, it is the rightists who often gloss over the injustices upon humanity(including Japanese citizens as well as civilians in other Asian countries) with a pack of lies.

Personally, I don't see any problem with those who worship the shrine for whatever purposes and reasons. Rather, the problem lies in nation's inability to transcend her meaning of worshipping beyond the mere role of the shrine. The shrine itself was built for the commemoration of Japan's military achievements, and thus, its role is different from other peace memorials. It commemorates the Japanese soldiers(including some Koreans) who showed the patriotism to the Emperor and his imperial fascists to sacrifice their own lives for the nation. Civilians who were killed during the wartime, by air raids, A-bombs, or by arrogant “kenpeitai” patrol soldiers, and immoral Japanese military officers, are not included. For this reason, JP government's current intent of worshipping as the pursuit of everlasting peace is hampered by the role of shrine which produces seductive discourse of nostalgia for war legacy.

skipthesong

Just because someone wants to point out something that had happened 60 years ago doesn't make it 100%.

Yeah, I agree with you. Past memory is getting elusive in this age of globalization, and in the shards of memory we human beings are coveting for nostalgia. I think this reflects our sense of taste for consumer culture in a post-modern world, and this issue as well as the film itself is not an exception.

It is clear that the director only want to point out the negative.

I don't know how you define the term "negative" in this context, but if you see it with negativity that will be the reflection of Japanese public perception. Due to the imperial and authoritative role of the shrine, it's quite challenging for ordinary citizens to take the positive attitude toward the structure as a means of identification. Citizens were coerced into worshipping the national authority to the detriment of human injustices, and excessive sacrifices of their own lives during the wartime. Eventually, they were masked by the imperial authorities and conservatives with means-ends logic after World War II.

The Goverment has repeatedly asked the shrine to remove those remains and the shrine has refused every-time. Also when those Class A War-criminals were enshrined it was not done with permission by the than authorities.

The Goverment has been trying for some years now to setup a new war-memorial but has run into problems moving remains from the shrine to the new site and also by families of fallen soldiers that want them to remain at Yasukuni.

This info is readily available on the Net.

Well. There are no "remains" in Yasukuni so you're waaay off base.

The Goverment has repeatedly asked the shrine to remove those remains and the shrine has refused every-time. Also when those Class A War-criminals were enshrined it was not done with permission by the than authorities.

"The Goverment has been trying for some years now to setup a new war-memorial but has run into problems moving remains from the shrine to the new site and also by families of fallen soldiers that want them to remain at Yasukuni.

This info is readily available on the Net."

Well. There are no "remains" in Yasukuni so you're waaay off base.

I wanted to see and judge the contents for myself

which is exactly how it should be, and have the Gvmnt keep their grubby hands off!

For this reason, JP government's current intent of worshipping as the pursuit of everlasting peace is hampered by the role of shrine which produces seductive discourse of nostalgia for war legacy.

Perhaps such nostalgia might be more aptly termed as the Tokyo Trial syndrome or something. In Japan's view or even some others' too, her initiation of military involvement in China could rather be outlined as follows: By having the Anglo-Japanese Alliance cancelled, the U.S. enforced on Japan the Washington Conference system (sort of internationalism of "Let's share China equally"), which the U.S. didn't observe herself yet trying to get into China's good book thus letting Chinese nationalism go out of control to the point which was more than Japan could stand. And quite nicely Japan was bogged down in China's civil war for the benefit of someone who would take control of the whole country eventually.

Director Li Ying might as well have shed a bit of light on this historical viewpoint in his movie, if he is a professed Japanophile (he says he is 愛日 rather than just 親日) who tried to present in-depth understanding of what the sword symbolism of Yasukuni as suggested in the film had to do with China. Probably Mao would take scarcely any stock of Yasukuni though knowingly.

the U.S. didn't observe herself yet trying to get into China's good book thus letting Chinese nationalism go out of control to the point which was more than Japan could stand.

China's perception of Japan as strategic rival, rather than congenial alley, may be reflected on the difference of US national/diplomatic relations with each country in historical context. After the Second World War, the AP allies decided to use Japan as a beachhead to monitor the Communist China. They pardoned most of former military officers, suspected war criminals, political elites, and national conservatives. The first JP prime minister after WWII was a suspected war criminal(Nobusuke Kishi)who successfully escaped the trial. In this respect, I'm reckoning that some or most conservatives/right-wing intelligence hold that they are right, because the U.S. eventually condoned the sins of blind followers and guilty parties of JP national imperialism.

On the other hand, China was in a civil war between Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Army and Mao Zedong's People’s Liberation Army in the mid 1940s. As you know, Chiang Kai-shek, who was hostile to Japan, held an alliance with the U.S in his political reign. Mao chose a different path from the predecessor, becoming the national leader of Communism in order to fight against the western imperialism during the Cold War period. Interestingly, Mao did not show an avenging hostility toward Japan like Chiang Kai-shek’s; he let most of JP POWs go home with a tidbit of reminder about the past.

I agree that the U.S. shift in military strategy had tempted Chinese nationalism after WWII. Yet during the Cold War period it was still within control, because Communist China mainly targeted the U.S. rather than Japan. It is Spring 1982 that China's perception of Japan had changed, when Japanese media's exaggerating and inaccurate report of revising history textbooks (changing the words of ‘invasion’ to ‘advance’ referring it to the event of the Nanjing Massacre) was accidentally leaked to the public, and spread to the Asia and other foreign countries.

Correction: The first JP prime minister after WWII is Naruhiko Higashikuni, not Nobusuke Kishi. Kishi served as a prime minister from February 25, 1957 to June 12, 1958 and from then to July 19, 1960.(Check with Wekipedia).

Interestingly, Mao did not show an avenging hostility toward Japan like Chiang Kai-shek’s

I mean Kai-shek did. My bad.

Correction 2:

The first JP prime minister after WWII was a suspected war criminal(Nobusuke Kishi)who successfully escaped the trial.

Kishi actually did serve a sentence for three years after WWII. So, he is among those right-wingers who got benefited from the policies of the AP allies during the U.S. occupation.

Swung by the Osaka theatre today. It only holds 96 people so will be crowded, likely. No police yet for tomorrow's opening. Tried to get a ticket but they have no reservation system so I will just have to go again. Went to Yasukuni Shrine last week so want to see the film, too. Of course the museum is guilty of grave omissions, but as I understand it, it is a private institution and can omit whatever they want. It is a sanitized view of Japanese expansionism that tries to explain the invasion of Asia as being wanted by Asians and that the white man (and his embargos) is the reason the expansion was necessary. This story is then used as the reason Japan needed to be protected and the soldiers who died did so making the modern Japan. All quite twisted, but no more so than many other museums around the world. Chinese visitors would be and were shocked, however. When I see a U.S. museum state that mass killing of Vietnamese happened, and that bombing of Iraqi civilians happened, then we westerners will have a moral leg to stand on regarding Yasukuni.

I agree that the U.S. shift in military strategy had tempted Chinese nationalism after WWII.

It's not about the U.S. military strategy after WWII. It's about the unrealistically friendly attitude of the U.S. toward China in 1920's after the Washington Conference that tempted Chinese nationalism to go out of control and ultimately induced Japan's military involvement in Manchuria.

The Washington Conference aimed for cooperation among the western powers including Japan on how to deal with China in 1920's. And China was expected to behave responsibly in compliance with international rules and standards so that China might achieve her aims (such as the revision of unequal treaties) without discordance with other countries just as Japan had achieved by modernizing herself.

However the spirit of the Washington Conference was disregarded by China herself who thought the scheme of the conference as an occasion to claim her rights and disdain foreign powers outright rather than to try to abide by international rules. The U.S. also overlooked it and chose to ingratiate herself with China whereas gave the cold shoulder to Japan who had already crucial interests in China incomparable to other western countries and yet tried to conduct scrupulously according to the spirit of the conference. As a result it helped China's hysterically hyper-tense nationalism get more rampant with never ending boycotts of made-in-Japan products. On the other hand the Soviets warmly aided CCP to stir up anti-Japan violence. These were the background of Manchurian Incident of 1931, the eruption as it were of sword symbolism this movie tries to imply. Director Li Ying with all his critical view might as well have thought of how the sword had to be unsheathed too. Then would he wonder if Mao and Chiang Kaishek could care less about Yasukuni than any of their descendants and Li himself?

It's about the unrealistically friendly attitude of the U.S. toward China in 1920's after the Washington Conference that tempted Chinese nationalism to go out of control and ultimately induced Japan's military involvement in Manchuria.

OK. Maybe it's right the Chinese nationalism(depends on how you look at it) might have been stirred up in this context. But, it's quite hard for me to agree that such tension was caused primarily by the US, because Japan was also showing great hostility toward China. Both China and Japan had a historical bad blood for more than hundred of years.

The U.S. also overlooked it and chose to ingratiate herself with China whereas gave the cold shoulder to Japan who had already crucial interests in China incomparable to other western countries and yet tried to conduct scrupulously according to the spirit of the conference.

If this statement is true, maybe you're right. Such contrast in US attitude might have been shown even before WWII. This could be the trigger that could drive a wedge between Japan and China, although it's in a nascent stage.

As a result it helped China's hysterically hyper-tense nationalism get more rampant with never ending boycotts of made-in-Japan products.

Are you saying that China's current hysterical nationalism toward Japan(and the US, maybe) is motivated from the context in this historical period? It could be. But I don't think this is the single factor. You're trying to make an analogy by skipping more than 60 years from the 1920s. You also need to look into the events in the periods during and after WWII. Change of Chinese regime, historical shift to the Cold War, after the end of the Cold War, significant contrasts of US attitude toward Japan and China underlying these periods. China's boycott of Japanese products is apparently the reflection of historical controversy(history textbook disputes) flared up in the early 1980s, the 1990s, and 2005.

Director Li Ying with all his critical view might as well have thought of how the sword had to be unsheathed too.

I don't know Ying's entire intention in this respect. The sword was regarded as the rhetorical symbol implying the atrociousness of Japanese imperial army during that period. For Japanese, it was the symbol of strength(masculinity) and pride(harakiri suicide). Yet, for non-Japanese, it was the symbol of atrocity and death.

Then would he wonder if Mao and Chiang Kaishek could care less about Yasukuni than any of their descendants and Li himself?

Why do you need bother to link Mao and Chiang Kaishek with Yasukuni? That's not what I discussed in my previous post.

To amerijap:

But, it's quite hard for me to agree that such tension was caused primarily by the US, because Japan was also showing great hostility toward China. Both China and Japan had a historical bad blood for more than hundred of years.

It was not a one-way hostility. Japan had crucial interests in China in terms of trade and commerce as well as vested interests in the leased territories incomparable to those of other western countries as necessitated by geographical vicinity and resulted from the historical development. The Washington Conference which advocated international cooperation among its signatory countries with regard to China only let her disregard international rules and get more rude and hostile to foreign countries, above all to Japan. The U.S. instead of going by the spirit of the conference was patronizingly indulgent to China. This in fact let her take a more defiant attitude than ever neglecting to abide by international standards to the point Japan couldn't stand.

Are you saying that China's current hysterical nationalism toward Japan(and the US, maybe) is motivated from the context in this historical period? It could be. But I don't think this is the single factor. You're trying to make an analogy by skipping more than 60 years from the 1920s.

I'm not saying about China's current nationalism. I mean the one in the 1920's as the background of Japan's military involvement in China. The present weird nationalism of China against Japan is another matter. Perhaps it's the result of CCP's policy shift after the end of the Cold War. Anti-Japan ideologue might have been convenient to preserve the otherwise rather precarious legitimacy of CCP. In this sense Yasukuni has become a rather good political diversion for China after the Berlin Wall collapsed.

I don't know Ying's entire intention in this respect. The sword was regarded as the rhetorical symbol implying the atrociousness of Japanese imperial army during that period. For Japanese, it was the symbol of strength(masculinity) and pride(harakiri suicide). Yet, for non-Japanese, it was the symbol of atrocity and death.

Technically or theologically speaking, the sword as the object of worship housed in Yasukuni has no bearing on what Director Li Ying implied in the film or what Mr. Kariya the sword-smith featured in the movie forged as Yasukuni-To (靖国刀). The objects of worship, Goshintai (御神体) in Yasukuni shrine are "Kagami (御鏡)" and "Tsurugi (御剣)" quite common objects of worship in Shinto shrines nationwide since ancient times including Atsuta-Jingu and Isonokami-Jingu. Tsurugi is different from what is generally known as a Japanese sword (日本刀). It has nothing to do with pride or harakiri suicide, still less with atrocity and death.　

Why do you need bother to link Mao and Chiang Kaishek with Yasukuni? That's not what I discussed in my previous post.

Both figures as the party leaders who actually fought with Japan perhaps have the right to say something about it too. And yet they would care less, I should think.

Well, saw the movie today in Osaka. It was full and quite riveting. The general thrust is that Yasukuni is a place where rabid nationalists gather and that it has served as the religious focal point for much of Japan's war making. The sword maker from Kochi seems like a bit of a pawn rather than anyone bad. He is just a typical high quality craftsman that Japan is famous for. Toward the end, many scenes of Hirohito are shown at Yasukuni as well as pictures of beheadings in Asia. These images are alternated to make the viewer get the connection between Yasukuni, state Shintoism and the slaughter in Asia. As a piece of documentary work, the music is what stood out for me, it was amazingly well chosen. Also, the hidden camera work at Yasukuni also caught the nationalists at their crazy best and took a fair bit of bravery to film. By coincidence, I was in the line to get in with a Chinese guy and because it was sold out, we sat on the floor together and watched the film. I found this rather moving as the hatred of China shown by some of the nationalists was pathetic. My only gripe about the film is that the scene where the Chinese man is beaten up must have been staged, I mean that the director knew the rally by nationalists was going to be heckled by the Chinese man and hence he knew something bad was going to happen. Not too professional in my book. Overall an excellent film and as the Chinese man I watched it with said, it would be nice if it could be shown in schools. (not a chance of this happening, however)

Seiharinokaze:

It was not a one-way hostility. Japan had crucial interests in China in terms of trade and commerce as well as vested interests in the leased territories incomparable to those of other western countries as necessitated by geographical vicinity and resulted from the historical development. The Washington Conference which advocated international cooperation among its signatory countries with regard to China only let her disregard international rules and get more rude and hostile to foreign countries, above all to Japan. The U.S. instead of going by the spirit of the conference was patronizingly indulgent to China. This in fact let her take a more defiant attitude than ever neglecting to abide by international standards to the point Japan couldn't stand.

Yeah, sounds like a fair argument. Still, I’m not sure this was the beginning of Japanese hostility toward China, and China against Japan vice versa, though.

I'm not saying about China's current nationalism. I mean the one in the 1920's as the background of Japan's military involvement in China. The present weird nationalism of China against Japan is another matter. Perhaps it's the result of CCP's policy shift after the end of the Cold War. Anti-Japan ideologue might have been convenient to preserve the otherwise rather precarious legitimacy of CCP.

OK. But, how does the Chinese nationalism in the 1920s relate to China’s current attitude toward Japan in political/diplomatic context? In your previous post, you just sounded like China’s repetitive outbursts toward Japan over international politics and past history are derived from the anti-Japanese Semitism in the 1920s. It could be to some extent. But I don’t think that Sentiment remained the same during WWII and the Cold War for the very reason I mentioned in the previous post. Also,I’m still not sure what you mean by “out of control” in this respect. Do you mean that China was chanting anti-Japanese(or American) Semitism from that period until today? I don’t see that way (hope you don’t either), because Mao’s CCP was targeting the US during the Cold War Period, not Japan. His regime actually suppressed the tragic memory of WWII(ex. the Nanjing Massacre) for the sake of regaining Chinese national pride. After the Cold War, Japan was seeking a reconciliation with China, after US President Richard Nixon visited China and normalized a diplomatic relationship in 1971. Japan eventually mended a national relationship with China in 1972. They were on the right track at least in the 1970s, until Japan faced an outrage from Asia over the history textbook controversy in spring 1982, which was caused by JP media’s excessive and inaccurate report. That media blunder gave China not only a wrong perception of Japan, but unnecessary stigmatization on the entire Japanese public. It apparently misled China to believe that Japan was trying to revert itself to the pre-war status by indoctrinating war of aggression in an academic community and public.

Yasukuni has become a rather good political diversion for China after the Berlin Wall collapsed.

Well, I would say it’s not just for China, but for all the Asian countries which experienced the Japanese colonization during WWII.

Technically or theologically speaking, the sword as the object of worship housed in Yasukuni has no bearing on what Director Li Ying implied in the film or what Mr. Kariya the sword-smith featured in the movie forged as Yasukuni-To (靖国刀). The objects of worship, Goshintai (御神体) in Yasukuni shrine are "Kagami (御鏡)" and "Tsurugi (御剣)" quite common objects of worship in Shinto shrines nationwide since ancient times including Atsuta-Jingu and Isonokami-Jingu. Tsurugi is different from what is generally known as a Japanese sword (日本刀). It has nothing to do with pride or harakiri suicide, still less with atrocity and death.

I gave you the symbolic meanings of materiality in general. They are the rhetorical symbols or references people are attached to the object. Maybe the sword kept in the shrine is the most sacred and precious one, and hard to come by for ordinary soldiers. I’m not sure such sword was never used during the wartime, however. Folks in the world are not yet ready to know the truth, I guess. 　

Sorry I may have digressed. Anyway "Goshintai" such swords as housed in the shrine were never used during the wartime. The craftsmanship of the sword-smith in the film, the military action of Japan during WW2 and the worship object of Yasukuni have nothing to do with each other in themselves. But I agree we should see the movie.

You're right Seiharinokaze.

The swords which Kariya has crafted is not the Japanese swords used in wartime. Secondly, as you may be already aware, the controversy among the certain Diet members is that Mr. Kariya's acceptance in the participation of the film was based on the understanding that the film was about his craftmanship.

Also, the topic of "censorship" does not apply in this case because no government official is censoring this film. What's being discussed among these certain politicians the validity of the Culturual Agency using the tax money to fund this film.

Judging from the last couple of postings, people may hold a wrong perception of toward a sword in general, possibly due to the symbolic image of "Japanese sword" which was rhetorically constituted in the context of WWII. Yeah, maybe you're right. The one in the shrine doesn't reflect a conventional weapon used for the combat. It's quite misleading for the folks, especially for those who are not familiar with Japanese history.