Japanese government removes Air Self Defence Force chief

In Japan, questioning any aspect of what is generally defined as "accepted" history--that is, history written and promoted by the victors--is tantamount to, say, questioning any aspect of the Jewish Holocaust in Germany: it ain't gonna fly.

So when Japan's now outgoing chief of the Japanese Air Self Defense Forces recently made statements suggesting that Japan was not an aggressor in the Second World War, his days were clearly numbered. Why? Because one does not use free speech in Japan, even though it is supposedly enshrined in the US-derived constitution.

Of course, his comments were clearly controversial: Japan's Imperial Army, Navy, and Air force were certainly aggressive on multiple occasions during WWII (what armies aren't during a time of war?).

But his comments could also be taken to mean that Japan didn't enter the wider war (it's colonial activities in Korea and annexing of Manchuko were sanctioned by the U.S. and Britain) until its imports of raw materials like steel and oil, and its ability to construct as many warships as the Powers of the time, were all restricted.

On top of this, Japanese were prohibited from immigrating to the United States and treated as second class citizens as at the time Chinese were preferred immigrants. These were international embarrassments for emerging Japan--slaps in the face--of a growing and industrial society that recently routed one of the most powerful navies in the world (the Russians).

These acts--restricting Japan's oil and steel imports, prohibiting Japanese immigration--were clearly very aggressive acts, and they occurred before the start of WWII. Some even argue Japan was prodded into the wider war because of these decisions by the United States and Britain.

Japan's response was clearly an aggressive one, and the aggression continued throughout the Second World War. But was Japan an aggressor nation that provoked other nations--particularly the United States--into war in Asia, or was it actually forced into that position?

That is a question that deserves more discussion and debate, not less.