The following is from the book review column of the February issue of the monthly magazine WiLL.
The Censor" by Taketoshi Yamamoto, reviewed by Atsushi Iwata
What was going on during the occupied period?
Historians rarely mention the period when the U.S. was in full swing to remake Japan.
I will never forget the haughty look on the face of a specific university faculty member who, when I suggested that it was during the period of occupation that historians should take the subject seriously, replied, "That time is not yet history."
He was not stupid but cowardly.
A historian who does not speak of the occupied period is no better than a fraud.
It was during this period that the present state of Japan was established.
If they do not reveal what took place during the occupied period, they are nothing more than historians.
The reason they do not talk about the occupied period is that to do so would deny the illusion of postwar democracy that the Left reveres.
They imposed the Constitution and controlled speech.
It is an indisputable fact.
Japan is abnormal because people are afraid to speak out about the facts.
The author is a serious and devoted researcher.
He is not tainted by ideology.
He is faithful to the facts.
His writing is also rigorous.
The lengthy quotations from sources are not easy to read.
However, I respect the author as a researcher from the bottom of my heart.
I have no doubt that Taketoshi Yamamoto is a true representative of a researcher.
He is not trying to make a point.
He is simply presenting the facts.
There are two interesting points in this book, which summarize the results of many years of research.
First, it discusses the GHQ's censorship of mail, which included using conspicuous stamps and sealing with plastic tape.
GHQ made efforts to conceal the fact that it was censoring mail.
But here they are, acting as if they are leaving traces of their censorship.
Why?
The author's reasoning is interesting.
There was a "watch list," a list of people whom GHQ specifically wanted to investigate.
When they censored the mail of this important list of people to be censored, they covered up the fact that there was censorship.
They acted as if nothing had "happened.
The author's reasoning is astute.
The author's theory is that the reason for daring to tell the public that the censorship had taken place was a diversionary tactic to conceal the secretive censorship by the watch list.
If interpreted in that way, GHQ's intentions become clear.
It is one example of the importance of reading and interpreting documents.
The second point is the description of the conflict between the Japanese people who became pawns of the U.S. occupation forces and stole the secrets of their fellow citizens.
The case of Mitsuo Umezaki, brother of Haruo Umezaki, who left behind a masterpiece of postwar history, "Genke," is symbolic.
He describes the thoughts and feelings of those paid by the occupying forces during a time when life was complicated.
He says, "I was a spy, so to speak, who tipped off GHQ about the thoughts and movements of the Japanese people after the defeat, so it is not difficult to imagine that deep down inside each one of them, there must have been some sludge that they felt ashamed to admit.
The author, a researcher, does not speak of his feelings at all.
However, between the lines, the author conveys the indignation of the Japanese people.
The book is highly empirical, but it conveys quiet anger.
Anyone who researches the occupied period is confronted with facts.
How have the leftists and "liberals" tried to dismiss this fact distorted academics?
How have historians who refuse to look at these facts deceived the public?
The author tells only the facts.
However, I feel a quiet anger.
It is a powerful work that makes us think that this is what an empirical researcher should do.
