Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing historical recognition gap between Japan and China, highlighting the need for Japan to confront its wartime history to foster better relations with China [1][2][3] Group 1: Historical Context - Japan's reluctance to acknowledge its wartime actions and its attempts to influence other countries' participation in commemorative events reflect a lack of historical reflection and a colonial mindset [1] - The rise of historical revisionism in Japan is causing concern among individuals from China and the Korean Peninsula living in Japan, indicating a dangerous trend in historical understanding [2] Group 2: Personal Insights - The scholar shifted focus from studying India's anti-colonial movement to addressing Japan's historical issues and its relations with China and Korea due to the rise of historical revisionism in the 1990s [2] - The scholar perceives a growing disconnect in Japan's understanding of China, with an increase in skepticism towards China even in friendly exchanges [2] Group 3: Role of Scholars - The scholar emphasizes the importance of bridging the cognitive gap between Japan and China by providing accurate information about Chinese society and addressing misconceptions held by the Japanese public [3] - The expectation from the Chinese public is for Japan to sincerely confront its history and reflect on its wartime actions rather than avoiding or distorting the truth [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the differences in post-war reflections and responsibilities between Germany and Japan, highlighting how Germany has been recognized for its efforts to confront its past, while Japan's ambiguous stance has led to a lack of trust from neighboring countries like China and South Korea [3][4]. Group 1: Historical Context and Responsibility - Germany has thoroughly addressed its war crimes from the Nazi era and implemented various compensation policies, earning international recognition, whereas Japan's ambiguous attitude towards its war responsibilities has hindered trust from its neighbors [3][4]. - The comparison between Germany and Japan is often made by liberal left intellectuals in Japan, who emphasize Germany's sincere efforts to prevent future atrocities, contrasting it with Japan's perceived irresponsibility in addressing its wartime actions [3][4]. - Right-wing perspectives argue that Japan did not commit systematic genocide like the Nazis and that Germany's apologies were strategically motivated rather than purely moral [3][4]. Group 2: Philosophical and Cultural Differences - The article highlights that Japan lacks a philosopher like Karl Jaspers, who provided a framework for discussing national responsibility in Germany, leading to a more simplistic binary view of guilt in Japan [13][16]. - Japan's post-war discourse on responsibility has been limited to a national framework, failing to adequately differentiate between perpetrators and victims, which has resulted in a blurred understanding of individual accountability [19][21]. - The concept of "total repentance" in Japan, which focuses on national failure rather than acknowledging aggression towards other nations, reflects an inward-looking approach that neglects the need for external accountability [18][19]. Group 3: Political and Social Implications - The maintenance of the emperor system in Japan has contributed to a unique narrative of war responsibility, where the government and military leaders are seen as perpetrators, while the emperor and ordinary citizens are viewed as victims [21][22]. - External pressures from neighboring countries have gradually shifted Japan's anti-war movements to reflect on its aggressions towards others, yet a consensus on the political responsibility of ordinary citizens remains elusive [23][24]. - The article notes that Japan's historical education and discussions around national identity have not reached the depth seen in Germany, where debates have been more philosophical and focused on collective responsibility [32][33].