Hidden truths: Japan's 'peace' museums quietly whitewashing its wartime aggression

In October, the city of Nagasaki unveiled a draft plan to revise exhibits at the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, proposing to replace references to the "Nanjing Massacre" with the more ambiguous term "Nanjing Incident." During deliberations, some voices even called for removing the related displays altogether.

This is not an isolated case. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. But, in Japan, a quiet but consistent shift is happening at many so-called "peace" museums: exhibits that document Japan's aggression and wartime responsibility during WWII are being deliberately weakened, reduced or removed. Museums that still present Japan's wartime history in a systematic and objective manner have become increasingly rare.

Overhaul of 'peace' museums

One early example is the Osaka International Peace Center. Once an important base for anti-war education, the museum long displayed extensive materials on the Nanjing Massacre and other Japanese wartime atrocities. As a result, it came under sustained attack from right-wing groups, which labeled its narrative a "masochistic view of history," pushing the institution to the brink of closure.

When the museum reopened in 2015 after a major overhaul, exhibits related to the Nanjing Massacre, the Pingdingshan massacre, and the so-called "comfort women" system (sexual slavery system) had been removed. What remained were largely narratives of Japanese civilian suffering, such as U.S. air raids on Osaka.

Masahiko Yamabe, an expert who has been studying the war history exhibits in "peace" museums across Japan since the 1980s, said that core content addressing Japan's responsibility for initiating war has nearly vanished. "This shift is a typical manifestation of the rise of Japanese historical revisionism."

Similar changes have occurred at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. After renovations in 2017, the museum reduced its description of Japan's war of aggression in China to a few brief lines: "In 1937, the Sino-Japanese War broke out... The war dragged on, and many Japanese soldiers died on the battlefield and were buried in foreign lands. At the same time, in the 'Nanjing Incident,' not only Chinese soldiers, but also prisoners of war, civilians, and children became victims."

The revised wording marked a sharp departure from earlier exhibits. The term "occupation" was directly erased; "massacre" was replaced with "sacrifice;" the Nanjing Massacre was downplayed as the "Nanjing Incident;" and the historical fact that the number of victims in the Nanjing Massacre was 300,000 was nowhere to be found. What remained unchanged was that Japan consistently referred to this war of aggression against China as the "Sino-Japanese War," a war of equal responsibility.

History is being distorted

"This is a clear step backward. Describing Japan's aggression and responsibility for harm as a third-party narrative is no different in essence from historical revisionism," said Japanese modern and contemporary history scholar Ryuji Ishida.

"The Nanjing Massacre was an atrocity committed by the Japanese army, which is an indisputable fact. Describing 'massacre' with a word like 'sacrifice,' which seems to be used to describe natural disasters, and deliberately omitting the perpetrators is tantamount to distorting history," Ishida added.

Against this broader trend, a small number of institutions continue to resist revisionism. The Kyoto Museum for World Peace at Ritsumeikan University has long presented key historical facts, including the "comfort women" system and the Nanjing Massacre.

During renovations in 2022, some staff proposed removing these exhibits under the pretext of making displays more "accessible." The proposal met strong opposition from an academic team led by Professor Satoshi Tanaka, who even threatened collective resignation. The museum's management ultimately withdrew the plan.

In a written commentary, then deputy director of the museum Yoshifusa Ichii warned that such revisions would dilute Japan's responsibility as a wartime aggressor. He cautioned that, amid current efforts to revise Japan's pacifist constitution and promote so-called "national normalization" and become a "nation capable of waging war," basic historical understandings are at risk of being completely rewritten.

Concerns extend beyond museums. In September, the National Archives of Japan held an exhibition with the theme of "The End of the War," defining the starting point of the war as "December 8, 1941, when Japan went to war with the United States and the United Kingdom," without making any statement about Japan launching a war of aggression.

Yamabe criticized: "If we only start from 1941, it becomes merely a war between the U.S. and Japan, but in fact, Japan's invasion of China was the more important part. From the perspective of the nature of being an 'aggressive war,' it should start from the September 18 Incident."

Debate over historical language continues at the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. A local civic group has urged the museum to retain terms such as "Nanjing Massacre" and "aggression." The civic group argues that in the eyes of the countries that once suffered from Japanese aggression, the revision of relevant expressions is merely an attempt to cover up its negative history.

Rising right-wing forces

Looking back, Yamabe observed that compared with the 1990s, Japan's museums have clearly retreated in their presentation of perpetrator history. Under growing pressure from right-wing forces and amid repeated renovations, exhibits addressing Japan's wartime responsibility have steadily contracted.

More troubling, he added, is the rise of narratives that glorify kamikaze units and otherwise legitimize Japan's wartime actions, effectively justifying aggression. This trend, he said, reflects the broader spread of historical revisionism in Japanese society. Yamabe attributed it to both a rightward shift in government attitudes toward history – shaping how institutions present the past – and the growing influence of right-wing groups that pressure museums into compromise.

Takakage Fujita, the secretary-general of the Association for Inheriting and Propagating the Murayama Statement, identified another root cause: long-standing deficiencies in Japan's history education.

He noted that repeated government interference in textbooks has downplayed or denied Japan's aggressive past, leaving younger generations with little understanding of historical facts. Coupled with sensationalist "China threat" narratives in right-leaning media, many Japanese, he said, fail to recognize the danger and war-provocative nature of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's Taiwan remarks.

Both Fujita and Yamabe stressed that Japan must strengthen history education, especially for younger generations. Japan's "peace" museums, they argued, should shoulder their responsibility by presenting wartime history objectively, so that more people can understand the value of peace and prevent the recurrence of historical tragedies.

(With input from Xinhua)