I'd say the books and comics of Japanese glories and fantasies never went away in Japan, they are just noticed more recently in the west.
I suppose if you get a bunch of old guys together from any country, they'll talk about the war. Look at this place...
Isn't political correctness the view from the side of the fence one is standing on? All history is interpretation and the interpretation begins the moment an event is over. The written history of victors will always demonize the vanquished. The truth might be found somewhere in the middle as omissions, twists, and interpretation by humans and institutions become accepted truths.
I don't believe anyone is perfect. The Japanese are just as self-centered in their history books as most nations. The whitewashing of Nanking, comfort women and other atrocities in Japanese history books is not a good thing. Whitewashing or interpretation occurs in other nations history also.
For example, let's take Iwo Jima, since the 60th anniversary just occured. Harry Truman said that he considered one of the greatest things about the Marines was their public relations department. He considered them just the US Navy's police force. Iwo Jima was a classic example of a bad situation turned into a glorious victory - a mistake made right by public relations.
First, intelligence was faulty. The size and entrenchment of the Japanese force was underestimated. It was quickly realized that there was not enough air power or troops after the initial landings. There was no great hurry to take Iwo Jima (the Japanese weren't going anywhere and were almost starving since all supplies had been cut off) and they could have pulled back for a few weeks until the right combination of force was mustered.
Instead, a bad situation with no urgency was turned into a meatgrinder. There was little strategic importance to Iwo Jima. After it was over, alot of questions were being asked and heads looked like they would roll over it, until the public relations campaign kicked in to try to justify the importance of Iwo Jima. The reasons kept changing.
One reason was given that it would provide an air base for fighter escorts to Japan. There was no fighter capable of flying from Iwo Jima to Japan and back. Next, was that it would be used as a bomber base. It wasn't used as a bomber base. Then, it saved the lives of thousands of bomber crew as an emergency landing field. Very few bombers landed there in an emergency, but every takeoff and landing (it was used as a supply base) was counted as saving crew members.
There never was a justification for the scale of US Marine deaths and wounded. Today, it is hailed as a stirring achievement, yet was it really? Was it unwise stubborness instead of wise military strategy?
I suppose there are unlimited interpretations of everything.
