Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wuz wondering something along the same lines....genuine guilt (if so....why? Was he there? Did he make the policies? Did he personally bayonette someone?) or just a grab for some sympathetic Look-At-How-Humble-I-Am TV-time? Never met the guy myself, so I can't say for certain. But knowing how politicians in general tend to behave....I have my suspicions.
IMO, this attitude from leaders is not unique to Japan/China, et al. The English very much saw the lower ranks as 'cannon fodder'. I just think that the Japanese, not seeing surrender as an option, accepted this point of view for longer than other countries.The mindset (this has changed since the close of WWII) with the leaders was that the people were disposable and the people themselves were loyal to thier leaders, to the death...literally.
True, to the Japanese, surrender was an ultimate humiliation of not only themselves, but thier ancestors. When Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender on the radio, many committed suicide.
"The memory of the war is fading."
Not for some ex-POW survivors. This is George Aspinall, who survived Changi and managed to bring back photographs of his ordeal. They and his recollections were published in a book called "Changi Photographer."
I doubt that any apology or sentiments of regret will ever cut it for veterans like George.
I can believe the history between Japan/China/Korea....kinda reminds me of the Middle East. Conflicts that have been ongoing for thousands of years are not going to be settled by a signature on a piece of paper aboard a battleship. The PTO was a horrible place to be, and atrocities were committed on ALL sides. However....committing an atrocity during the heat of battle is markedly different from having a policy that allowed atrocities to become the norm.