World War II was the scene of many atrocities, with the Japanese military infamous for its own wartime actions. Nowadays we hear stories of unspeakable inhumane acts committed by the Imperial Army, but what is taught about this war in today's Japan is quite different from the truth. In the context of World War II, the narrative of “self-victimization” is pervasive in Japanese society. For example, the Atomic Bomb Memorial in Hiroshima, while testifying to the strength, endurance, and recovery of the Japanese people, is also strongly linked to notions of victimhood. This narrative dates back to the advent of the Japanese newspaper industry and its subsequent shift from Imperial to Allied (American) censorship. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Tokyo war crimes trials, also strongly influenced and shaped the emerging narrative of victimhood. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Since its emergence in the late 19th century, the Japanese newspaper industry has been subject to intermittent bureaucratic censorship. This continued until the start of World War II, and as the war effort continued, the press found itself gradually restricted and manipulated in the dissemination of its views. In 1941, the National Mobilization Law was updated to completely eradicate press freedom and nationalize the media. In 1945, there was only one press company authorized to operate per prefecture. Civilians were fed throughout the war by propaganda that instilled in them a sense of nationalist pride and arrogance, and when Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945 was broadcast, it came as a huge shock to the country's militarist facade. Japan spread throughout the country. The once-entrenched view of Japan's supreme imperial forces, combined with the culture's extreme disregard for surrender, led to a negative public reaction. However, censorship control of the press was quickly implemented. An example of this is the Asahi Shimbun's report regarding Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945. The newspaper reported alleged masses of people flocking to the imperial palace to express their anguish over the emperor's declaration of surrender. Journalist Suetsune Takuro wrote a report beforehand and edited the details, trying to "'describe the correct attitude' (the way of the imperial subject) that he thought 'the people' should adopt." Mourners cried with their backs disrespectfully turned to the palace (and thus the emperor), but Tokyo journalists would not have taken photos to document this either. The Japanese government's grip on the press was constantly exercised and peaked during World War II and, unlike the nation's capitulation and all that accompanied it, it forced the nation into a sea of undercurrents and undercurrents of denial and denial. powerless submission to the country's new military authority. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are widely considered the defining foundations of Japan's victimhood mentality during World War II. It is not a radical argument that the attitude towards the atomic bombings naturally evolved towards this mentality. However, this idea had an almost direct origin, which came from a story published during the American occupation, entitled The Bells of Nagasaki. This book was written by Nagai Takashi, who on 9August 1945, witnessed the atomic bomb explosion on Nagasaki. Nagai was a professor of radiology at Nagasaki Medical College and was informed during the war that he had only a few years to live, attributed to leukemia. Subsequently, he suffered the atomic bomb and lost his wife, taking care of his two young children alone. He wrote essays from his deathbed, channeling his anguish and agony into this book, as well as all his other books. Following the publication of Bells of Nagasaki, Nagai became a national celebrity, attributed to the resounding success of his book. Nagai, as a devout Catholic, revered and compared the atomic bombing of Nagasaki to a deep connection between its destruction and the end of the war. He claimed that the city had been chosen to be the victim, the sacrificial lamb sacrificed in order to repent for all the sins committed by humanity during the war. Nagai's work has attracted widespread criticism, often characterized as hyperbole and over-sentimentality. His work on The Bells of Nagasaki has been closely scrutinized, discussed by Yuko Shibata, a scholar and professor of East Asian literature, as "... problematic, the idea of ​​the sublime that he forcefully promotes is a way to bracket or even deliberately lose the whole of a referential constellation – a referent of a perpetrator, a victim and a historical context. The founding trauma blurs all distinctions between them and thus shifts questions of social, historical, political and moral responsibility to an ahistorical domain. The narrative of self-victimization and powerlessness that emerged from this book resonated across the country, and many accounts appeared after the end of Allied occupation, and thus the decline of censorship control. This narrative was beginning to be standardized, and Children of Hiroshima, a compilation of the testimonies of approximately 100 Hiroshima schoolchildren, was a key example. To this day, opinions differ on whether Japan was truly a casualty of the war. This is a complex and sensitive issue, but what can be assured is that this account of self-victimization stems from a detailed and first-hand account from a victim of this devastating event. A bombing of this magnitude would inevitably lead to the construction of such a narrative, and the victims are not to blame. The International Military Tribunal (IMT), also known as the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, was organized after the war to bring justice to Japan's war criminals. Many called the trials unfair to the subject parties, citing reasons such as that the trial itself was not a means of achieving justice, but simply "an opportunity for revenge" and to humiliate the vanquished. This perspective remains true when examining the context surrounding the creation of the tribunal. The main criticism leveled at the IMT concerned the selection of the members themselves. The Potsdam Declaration was drafted by members of the victorious Allied powers in the war, and the issue of impartiality has been highlighted by critics. Maria H. Chang, a political scientist, and Robert Barker wrote that “…the partisan nature of the (Potsdam) Declaration had tainted both the Declaration as well as the Tokyo Tribunal it mandated.” Judge Radhabinod Pal, who was himself an IMT judge, “raised substantive objections regarding the politicization and questionable legality of the trial.” Another reason that exacerbated the neutrality of the Trial was the dominant presence of the United States. The Tokyo Charter was drafted and approved by the United States on behalf of the Allied Powers in the Far East. This imposing presence led the Netherlands to appoint Bert Röling to the IMT panel, to suggest that "the court.