The Pacific War battlefields: tourist attractions or war memorials?

Abstract

Abstract The Pacific War segment of the Second World War provides several important sites in the touristic geography of war and peace today—the more violent the particular conflict area, the more ‘attractions’ it appears to provide. Discussion of Japanese involvement and therefore of Japanese battlefield tourism has, however, been made more problematic by a curious paradox in the way the Japanese see themselves and their country on the world stage. On the one hand there has been assiduous promotion of the idea that Japan has always been an isolated island nation, poor in natural resources, unable to understand the outside world and constantly struggling to break from Edo period isolationist shackles as an explanation of their involvement in the Pacific War. On the other hand the country now enjoys its status as the second largest economy in the world and has been a leader in rapid economic development for more than 60 years since 1945, based solely on internationalisation. This dichotomy has in fact been very useful in avoiding discussion of the actual impact of Japan's imperial past on its subject peoples (and on its own veterans), as the new Japan should not be seen as being in any way responsible for the old Japan. This paper discusses the ongoing debate on Japan's involvement in the Pacific War 1941–45, the development of Pacific battlefields as tourist destinations, and makes some attempt to portray and explain present‐day attitudes to battlefield tourism amongst the veterans and populations of both sides. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.