Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Takaichi War Denial Clip Explodes Online

Blog

Takaichi War Denial Clip Explodes Online
Blog

Blog

Takaichi War Denial Clip Explodes Online

2026-07-28 23:08 Last Updated At:23:21

A 24-year-old "dark history" clip of Prime Minister Takaichi has resurfaced on Japanese social media. In it, she comments on Japan's war against China, and the footage has quickly drawn renewed attention.

Renowned political commentator and TV host Soichiro Tahara interviewed Takaichi on a 2002 news program. He pressed her on her support for right-wing politicians visiting Yasukuni Shrine.

More Images
Resurfaced 2002 clip shows host branding Takaichi ignorant over China war denial.

Resurfaced 2002 clip shows host branding Takaichi ignorant over China war denial.

On air, Takaichi said Japan's invasion of China was self-preservation and self-defense.

On air, Takaichi said Japan's invasion of China was self-preservation and self-defense.

Takaichi claimed colonizing others was then normal, so Japan did not commit act of aggression.

Takaichi claimed colonizing others was then normal, so Japan did not commit act of aggression.

Tahara told Takaichi a lawmaker with such ignorant history views was deeply troubling.

Tahara told Takaichi a lawmaker with such ignorant history views was deeply troubling.

When asked whether Japan's invasion of China was a war of self-preservation and self-defense, Takaichi said she believed it was. Tahara immediately denounced her on air as ignorant and naive.

Resurfaced 2002 clip shows host branding Takaichi ignorant over China war denial.

Resurfaced 2002 clip shows host branding Takaichi ignorant over China war denial.

The On-Air Clash

According to Japanese media, the clip originated from "Sunday Project," an Asahi TV program broadcast on August 18, 2002. Tahara hosted the segment. He questioned guests about right-wing politicians visiting Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines 14 Class-A war criminals from World War II.

Takaichi supported such visits at the time. So Tahara asked how she viewed Japan's invasion of China. He asked whether she considered Japan's war to have been a war of self-preservation and self-defense. Takaichi said she believed it was. Her response immediately drew Tahara's resentment.

On air, Takaichi said Japan's invasion of China was self-preservation and self-defense.

On air, Takaichi said Japan's invasion of China was self-preservation and self-defense.

Tahara raised his voice in response. This was no joke. The Manchurian Incident, he said, was instigated by the Japanese military, specifically the Kwantung Army. They fabricated the whole thing. That was clearly a war of aggression.

As Takaichi tried to respond, Tahara pressed on. He noted that even former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone had called the Manchurian Incident strange. Then he asked why Japan would invade Manchuria in the name of self-defense and establish a puppet state there.

Takaichi insisted that colonizing other countries was a widely accepted international norm at the time. Other nations were doing the same, she argued, so Japan's actions should not be considered aggression.

Takaichi claimed colonizing others was then normal, so Japan did not commit act of aggression.

Takaichi claimed colonizing others was then normal, so Japan did not commit act of aggression.

Tahara rebutted her directly with historical evidence. He said the fact that she called this act of aggression self-preservation and self-defense only showed her ignorance. It was truly alarming, he added, that a member of parliament held such an ignorant view of history.

Tahara told Takaichi a lawmaker with such ignorant history views was deeply troubling.

Tahara told Takaichi a lawmaker with such ignorant history views was deeply troubling.

Still, Takaichi pushed back. At the very least, she said, she believed it was a war fought for security. Tahara shot back sharply. That naïve view, he said, was simply laughable.

Neither the host nor the media could have imagined it at the time. A politician who distorted history and denied Japan's wartime crimes would, more than two decades later, become the country's prime minister.

The clip has reignited public debate, and Tahara responded to it directly. On July 26, he updated his account on X and expressed his wish to have a dialogue with Takaichi.

Right-Wing Echoes, Real-World Risk

According to Global Times' new media outlet, this 2002 video resurfaces every few years, sparking fresh rounds of controversy. What stands out this time, the report says, is how voices defending Takaichi's historical distortions are spreading.

Right-wing forces on the fringes of Japanese society are amplifying these voices through the internet and social media, wrongly influencing a growing number of Japanese people.

Online right-wing rhetoric is one problem, but the report argues something else matters more. Far more consequential is the new-style militarism Takaichi has pursued since taking office, marked by accelerated military expansion.

This is precisely why neighboring countries, including China, remain especially wary of Japan under her leadership.

Why Japan Never Faced Its Past

Citing historical analysis from authoritative mainland media, the report states that Japanese society has long been plagued by distortions of its history of aggression. Wartime crimes have been whitewashed for decades, and many far-right figures have now risen to political power. Japan, unlike Germany, never fully confronted the ideological roots of its militarism after World War II.

As the Cold War took shape, the United States substantially revised its Japan policy out of bloc-confrontation considerations. It halted mid-way efforts to purge militarist forces, and many war criminals were treated leniently and allowed to return to politics.

This, the report suggests, is the key reason for the stark contrast between the two defeated powers. Germany thoroughly reckoned with Nazi crimes and reflected deeply on the war, while Japan has long evaded its history of aggression and refused to sincerely atone for it.




Deep Throat

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The future belongs to artificial general intelligence (AGI). China and the United States are pursuing different strategies in the contest for global leadership.

But one US national security think tank wants to take the rivalry to an extreme. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has gone so far as to suggest that Washington consider extreme measures to stop China from achieving AGI first.

CNAS released “Superpowers and AGI” report late last month.

CNAS released “Superpowers and AGI” report late last month.

Jacob Stokes, one of the report's authors and a former White House official, called on the US to prepare itself. He listed possible extreme measures, from diplomacy and espionage to cyberattacks and coercive steps. Among them: military strikes on Chinese data centers.

Stokes, one of the authors of the report urged extreme steps, even strikes on Chinese data centers.

Stokes, one of the authors of the report urged extreme steps, even strikes on Chinese data centers.

CNAS is headquartered in Washington and was founded in 2007. It has long advised the US government on defense, Indo-Pacific and China strategy. Its lean is hawkish.

Late last month, CNAS released a report titled “Superpowers and AGI”. The document reeks of gunpowder. It argues that the race for AGI, and the technology's potential emergence, could profoundly affect US-China competition. It could also heighten the risk of military conflict or catastrophe on multiple fronts.

The Containment Checklist

To that end, the report urges US policymakers to act on several fronts. First, ensure that American resources and technology do not aid China's AI development. Second, establish AI-focused diplomatic channels with allies and with China, so that the potential emergence of AGI is placed on the agenda. Third, develop a technically sophisticated method to track the inputs into AGI and the key performance thresholds of frontier AI systems.

The list goes on. Washington should conduct scenario exercises testing when and how the US should intervene to halt China's AGI development. It should prepare to reverse-engineer or steal the technology should China obtain AGI first. And it should limit and contain the reach of authoritarian digital infrastructure.

The most extreme proposal of all is military strikes. The South China Morning Post reported on 4 September that Stokes, deputy director of CNAS's Indo-Pacific Security Program, addressed an online event on Thursday.

His message was blunt. The US Department of Defense, the National Security Agency and other agencies should begin assessing what intelligence would be needed to justify such operations. That would pave the way for the "hard action" to follow.

The Cold War Playbook

Stokes served as a national security staffer under former US president Barack Obama. In the report he unabashedly lays out a menu of what he calls "diplomatic, espionage, cyber and kinetic measures." Among them are military strikes on the data centers that train and run China's AGI systems. He even touts preventive strikes before China develops AGI at all.

Stokes goes so far as to compare the undertaking to the way "in a past era, policymakers would learn about nuclear weapons." His declared method is to "work backwards from the science to the policy implications."

Citing assessments by research outfit Epoch AI, the report notes that the US currently leads China in advanced AI models by only "months." But it warns that China could pull off an "unexpected technological breakthrough" in fields such as robotics and "embodied AI."

Citing research institute Epoch AI data, the report sees China pulling off surprise breakthroughs.

Citing research institute Epoch AI data, the report sees China pulling off surprise breakthroughs.

Notably, Stokes also concedes a gap on the American side. The US government and its intelligence agencies have "not been organised for espionage to gather technological secrets for decades."

"The Height of Recklessness"

Stokes' extreme remarks have drawn questioning within the United States itself. William Hartung, a senior arms and defense budget expert at the Washington-based non-profit Project On Government Oversight (POGO), publicly slammed the report as "the height of recklessness."

Hartung warned that any strike on Chinese data centers would "risk starting a shooting war between two nuclear-armed powers". Such a war could bring tragic consequences for all concerned.

China has consistently maintained that AI should be people-centered and that intelligence should serve the good. Military applications must remain under human control. Beijing opposes turning technological issues into bloc confrontation or weaponry.

Make no mistake: technological competition is no casus belli. When individual American politicians and think-tank figures reach for threats of "military strikes" and "espionage" at every turn, they gravely violate the basic norms of international relations. They also expose a dangerous bid to politicize and militarize technology.

Recommended Articles