How does the documentary "Horrors in the East" explain the transition of the Japanese military from being relatively humane in Taiwan and WWI to committing horrific atrocities in the 1930s and WWII?
Originally, the Japanese adopted policy that modeled after the West's foreign policy, and so this was portrayed by the relatively humane treatment in Taiwan. As shown in the documentary, German prisoners-of-war in Japan were treated quite well. However, a shift in foreign policy brought Japan back to traditional influence, and they began to isolate themselves from Western influence. Japan began to imperialize neighboring countries and colonies; these actions were condemned by the League of Nations. As the Japanese found this criticism hypocritical, they left the League and took drastic measures in order to expand their empire. This contributes to their change in treatment towards other ethnicities. They believed that the emperor was a God, and so any actions under him were justified. They were also taught that the other ethnicities were not human, and that they themselves were the supreme race. As a result of this dehumanization, treatment towards other ethnicities became brutal and atrocious. Massacres and rape were commonly seen in these atrocities.
In light of the historical record of Japan's actions in East Asia in 1931-45, how likely is it that the claims made by Japanese historians about "comfort women" is true? Why or why not?
It is very difficult to determine the level of credibility from these claims and sources, as what the Japanese claim are vastly different from what other historians say. The Japanese's claim is not that these "comfort women" didn't exist as a part of Japanese society and military, but that that number is toned down--specifically from the accused "200,000" to an estimate of "20,000". Of course, there isn't a real method to determine the credibility with so few sources, and even so, it is difficult to determine as bias is present in many of these sources--especially when from a Japanese perspective. Personally, I do not find the Japanese historian's claims as credible, as they may be taught or even persuaded to say differently from the reality, as they come from the actual nation who committed these crimes.
How appropriate do you judge the actions of the "revisionist" Japanese professors (and the Japanese government which allegedly support them) to be? Why?
Well, most likely they really were trying to provide their views for an academic purpose, despite being highly biased. I do not particularly find their views credible, even so, their views would be a great source to compare views and also evaluate the Japanese's view on these atrocities.
East Asia Co-Prosperity Document
Soon after the rapid modernization under the Meiji rule in 1868, Japan began its imperialistic ventures, following after the Western powers. Turning to imperialize most of Asia, Taiwan (Formosa) was made as their colony in 1874, and Korea was put under Japanese military rule. After a successful war against Russia, Japan also gained economic concessions in Manchuria. During WWI, being that Japan became an ally of Britain, it gained control over many German colonies in Asia. In 1915, Japan presented to China a set of "Twenty-One Demands", and although China was able to resist the demands of becoming a colony of Japan, Japan did gain economically as a result of these demands. Finally, in 1931 Japan launched an attack on Manchuria...which led to a decade-long war with the Chinese. To prevent American intervention, they launched an attack on their Pacific fleet, an event known as the Pearl Harbor Attack.
Japanese imperial plans were uncovered later on, one of the most significant being the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", which was prepared in 1942 by the Japanese Total War Research Institute. As a set of goals, this plan dictates the removal of Western influence and adoption of past traditions, war against the Western nations, unification of Japan, China, Manchuria, and parts of Russia. Other regions under Western imperialism were also included. The "sphere" would put Japan as the supreme power on the basis of racial superiority, which would also increase stabilization, defense, and prosperity in the long term. The economic aspects of this plan would target a few countries and unite them to form a central industry; all under Japan's military control.
Japanese imperial plans were uncovered later on, one of the most significant being the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", which was prepared in 1942 by the Japanese Total War Research Institute. As a set of goals, this plan dictates the removal of Western influence and adoption of past traditions, war against the Western nations, unification of Japan, China, Manchuria, and parts of Russia. Other regions under Western imperialism were also included. The "sphere" would put Japan as the supreme power on the basis of racial superiority, which would also increase stabilization, defense, and prosperity in the long term. The economic aspects of this plan would target a few countries and unite them to form a central industry; all under Japan's military control.
What is the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?
It is a plan prepared in 1942 that envisions a great Japanese empire, including large part of East Asia under its wing. By unifying nations in East Asia, it removes Western power from the region and Japan would exercise control over a large part of the world, fulfilling its imperialistic ventures.
Were Japanese imperialist goals different from the goals of nineteenth century European imperialism? If so, why are they different?
Although Japan initially based their ventures on Western imperialistic actions, their imperialist goals were quite different in terms of their intended effects. Japan sought to remove Western influence and imperialism in the region...by being the imperial power itself. Their plan followed "Japanese morality" where they would create a union that would cooperate and prosper together. However this is a bit ironic, as the terms ultimately gave power to Japan.