Stereotypical images of Japanese collectively in denial about the atrocities committed by the Imperial armed forces are grossly misleading and overlook the more prevalent view accepting wartime guilt and favoring atonement. In this excellent study featuring media and cultural analysis, Hokkaido University's Philip Seaton persuasively argues that, "Japanese war memories are not nearly as nationalistic as they are frequently made out to be."
Seaton points out that war memory is fiercely contested among Japanese, and collective amnesia is impossible given this ubiquitous and robust discourse. History remains at the center of contemporary political battles and it is thus a "current affairs" issue. The author writes: "The ways that Japanese people interact with their Asian neighbors, attitudes toward conflicts in other parts of the globe, nuclear issues, and attitudes concerning the core symbols of Japanese nationhood — the flag, emperor, national anthem, constitution and Japan's wider global role — are all inextricably linked to memories and interpretations of Japan's wartime past. The war has not been forgotten. Quite the opposite, the Japanese seem unable to let it go."
"Japan's Contested War Memories" asserts that the English-language media consistently misrepresents the true state of war memory among Japanese by focusing too much on attempts by conservatives and the ruling elite to impose a vindicating and glorifying narrative of the war that emphasizes Japan's victimization. This "orthodoxy" of a nation in denial and shirking war responsibility overlooks the significance of memory rifts in Japan. In examining textbooks, other educational materials, television documentaries, films and printed media, Seaton finds that progressive views critical of Japan's wartime aggression and accepting responsibility are more representative of Japanese opinion. He writes, "typically 50 to 60 percent of people characterize the war as 'aggressive,' while anything between 50 and 80 percent . . . are either critical of the government's 'inadequate' treatment of war responsibility issues . . . or are supportive of additional compensation and initiatives acknowledging aggression."