"John R. Yamamoto- Wilson" <john@rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message news:<bebf4t$2ntl$1@kanna.cc.sophia.ac.jp>...
> masayuki yoshida wrote:
> 
> > I guess that the Emperor knew such a stupid demonstration and its
> > meaninglessness.
> 
> On the contrary. It wasn't stupid or meaningless. I can't find a source that
> confirms what I read at the time (that he himself expressed shock because he
> hadn't fully understood the situation), but here is an account of the bare
> facts of the incident:
> 
> http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/pri.monarchs.html

The main reason why I said that the ex-servicemen's demonstration in
front of our present Emperor is stupid and meaningless is that I
thought that they don't know that we have an article of the
Constitution by which his political action is strictly limited as just
a symbol of Japan.  As a matter of fact, in the newspaper article John
showed, we can see poster's confusion on interpreting who is Japan's
head.  To repeat, the Emperor is no less than the symbol of our
nation.  However, as political tactics of appealing to Japanese and
other nationalities for assistance, what they did may be to some
extent effective.

Masayuki

An Apendix:

From: The Times.

May 27 1998 

  Robert Whymant and Michael Evans report on an
      attempt to reverse controversy over PoWs 

   Japanese press attacks British
                 'brutality' 

  JAPAN'S right-wing newspapers, angered by the
  prisoner-of-war "insults" against Emperor Akihito,
  claimed yesterday that Japanese PoWs had been
  mistreated in British camps. They also attacked
  Britain for its "barbarous" colonial rule. 

  Two staunchly monarchist newspapers with a
  combined daily circulation of 12 million said that
  the dignity of the imperial visit had been debased
  in the controversy over British PoWs' demands for
  a full apology. 

  One right-wing daily, the Sankei Shimbun, attacked
  Britain for treating the population of India,
  Burma and Malaysia "as less than human" during the
  colonial period, and said that Japanese soldiers
  caught by the British in the Second World War
  "were treated worse than dogs". It suggested that
  Japanese newspapers should put together special
  issues on the history of British aggression and
  print photos of British kings and queens under the
  headline: "Can you forgive them?" The paper added:
  "The British have no right to talk about human
  rights in Asia and African countries. When you
  wage war, there are always PoWs." 

  The fightback by the Japanese newspapers appeared
  to be based largely on a controversial and highly
  successful book written by a Japanese professor
  who claimed that while he was in British hands
  after Japan's surrender, he was "humiliated and
  degraded" by his captors. The British did not have
  Japanese "PoWs" under their care; by that stage of
  the war they were known as "Japanese surrendered
  personnel". 

  The history professor, Yuji Aida, wrote a stirring
  account of his time in Ahlone camp in Burma, in a
  bestselling book, Aron Shuyojo. He admitted he had
  never been physically tortured or maltreated, but
  he complained that he was treated with
  "unbearable" disdain by British non-commissioned
  officers. He also accused them of "racial
  contempt". 

  Professor Aida, who died last year, said he had
  discovered the "unknown soul of the British Army
  and of the British", which he found "frightening",
  causing him "untold misery". The contempt and
  hatred by British captors was "dehumanising". One
  British NCO had used him as a footstool for an
  hour and another had urinated on him: "They made
  me feel like a snake that has been skinned alive."

  Yomiuri, Japan's biggest circulation daily which
  sells more than ten million copies, yesterday
  asked: "Why should Japan be forced to apologise
  over the issue of former PoWs?" It said Britain
  had failed to repent for "barbarous acts" such as
  the Opium War (with China). 

  The newspaper recalled that at last year's
  ceremony marking the handover of Hong Kong to
  China, the Prince of Wales sang the praises of
  British rule for bringing democracy, liberty and
  prosperity to the territory: "What he didn't
  mention was the process of how Britain came to
  rule Hong Kong." 

  Jane Flower, an historian and authority on Allied
  prisoners of war, said that the treatment alleged
  by Professor Aida bore no comparison with the
  brutality suffered by the British and other PoWs. 

  However, she said that after it became clear how
  badly the PoWs had been treated by their Japanese
  guards, there had been cases where Japanese
  surrendered personnel had been beaten up. "But it
  wasn't widespread," she said. 

  "There was obviously a lot of ill-feeling towards
  the Japanese. The Allies were discovering PoWs in
  appalling physical condition, so this was
  inevitable. Some of the Japanese camp guards who
  were on trial for war crimes also claimed they
  were beaten up." 

  The Imperial Japanese Army captured about 67,000
  British soldiers in the first 100 days of its
  military advance in South-East Asia. By the time
  the war was over, more than 12,000 had died from
  disease, starvation or brutality, about 6,500 of
  them while working on the infamous Burma railway. 

  Clifford Kinvig, author of The Kwai Railway, said
  that, despite having captured much of the rice
  bowl of South-East Asia, the Japanese failed to
  provide the majority of prisoners with an adequate
  diet. 

  During their captivity, many were beaten for minor
  offences and some were killed in exemplary
  executions or died from a combination of
  punishments, malnourishment and disease. 

  After the war, 920 Japanese were accused of war
  crimes in the Far East, of whom 811 were convicted
  and 265 were given the death sentence.