Five Key Facts About Unit 731
(Based on the research of Sheldon H. Harris)
1. A State-Sponsored Program
Unit 731 was not the result of rogue officers acting independently. It was a state-sponsored biological warfare program directed by senior Japanese military leaders and supported with government funding and medical resources.
2. Human Experimentation Was Systematic
Large numbers of Chinese civilians, prisoners of war, and other victims were subjected to vivisection, infectious disease experiments, frostbite testing, and chemical weapons research. These were organized and repeatable procedures, not isolated incidents.
3. Biological Warfare Was Used in the Field
Unit 731 was not limited to laboratory research. Plague, cholera, and other pathogens were reportedly deployed in parts of China for field testing, contributing to civilian deaths and long-term public health consequences.
4. Postwar Politics Obscured Accountability
After World War II, some Unit 731 personnel reportedly received immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing experimental data to U.S. authorities. As a result, many key figures were never tried at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
5. Forgetting History Is Dangerous
Harris argued that without continued research, education, and public awareness, state violence can be minimized, normalized, or even justified. Historical education is not only about understanding the past—it is also a safeguard against repeating similar tragedies in the future.
Sheldon H. Harris(常被誤稱為 Harrison)是研究日本二戰期間 731 部隊細菌戰 的權威學者之一,其代表作系統性揭露了日本軍國主義在中國與亞洲多地進行生物與化學武器實驗的完整體系與犯罪事實。
Harris 的研究重點不僅在於暴行本身,更在於組織結構、決策鏈條與戰後掩蓋機制。他指出,731 部隊並非失控的個別單位,而是由日本陸軍高層直接主導、獲得政府資源支持的國家級犯罪計畫。
其著作清楚說明:活體解剖、細菌感染實驗、疫病投放測試皆屬系統性實驗,而非偶發行為。更重要的是,Harris 揭露了戰後美日之間的政治交易——部分 731 相關人員因提供實驗數據而獲得豁免,未被送上東京審判,導致正義長期缺席。
Harris 的研究對歷史教育具有深遠意義:他強調,若缺乏持續揭露與教育,國家暴力極易被淡化、遺忘,甚至重演。其學術精神以冷靜、嚴謹、不帶政治煽動著稱,是二戰生物戰研究領域不可繞過的基石。
A country constantly threatened by earthquakes and tsunamis, with very limited natural resources and food self-sufficiency, is already facing serious challenges. Unfortunately, it also has the unresolved problem of nuclear contamination. Even today, there is still controversy over how the wastewater from nuclear facilities should be handled, with some of it being discharged into the Pacific Ocean, potentially leaving future generations around the world to bear the consequences.
It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would choose to live in such a place. If Japan were truly as admirable as some claim, why did it repeatedly invade Korea and China throughout its history? More importantly, many people believe that Japan has never fully repented for its wartime aggression and that some political figures continue to pay respects at sites honoring Class-A war criminals responsible for launching wars of aggression.
From this perspective, people who place a high value on conscience and moral responsibility may find it difficult to support or admire such a place. They may view it as carrying a heavy historical burden and negative legacy. Some people even say they would rather avoid stopping there in transit.
For humanity reason as a decent person
There are certain principles and standards of basic human values that transcend national borders. In particular, when a group that once committed crimes against humanity attacks the very people who were victims of its past crimes, it is both reasonable and just for others to stand up and prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I believe this is consistent with the principles of justice and moral responsibility. I am proud of this woman’s actions and I agree with what she has done.
Italy and Japan were allies during World War II. However, today’s Italy is no longer the Fascist Italy of the Mussolini era. Modern Italy has rejected fascism and embraced democratic values.
Therefore, I would like to ask the Italian Prime Minister: Do Italians today still worship Benito Mussolini? If not, how can Italy maintain a close friendship with leaders who continue to pay tribute to Japan’s Class-A war criminals?
If Germany were still honoring Nazi leaders today, the world would find it deeply troubling. The same standards should apply universally. Genuine reconciliation requires an honest reckoning with history, respect for the victims of war, and a clear rejection of militarism and aggression.
True friendship between nations should be built on shared values, historical responsibility, and a commitment to peace, rather than overlooking unresolved issues from the past.
I would like to remind the British Prime Minister that, when dealing with Japan, it may be worthwhile to reflect on how Prime Minister Winston Churchill viewed Japan during World War II. Churchill regarded Imperial Japan as a nation that had violated both moral principles and international law through its wartime actions.
If today’s leaders in Britain and Japan have forgotten those lessons, China has not forgotten Japan’s past hostility and aggression, nor what many Chinese view as continuing attitudes of confrontation and historical revisionism.
One question worth considering is this: if Germany today were still openly glorifying Adolf Hitler, promoting Nazi ideology on a large scale, rapidly expanding its military capabilities, and directing missiles toward Britain and other European countries, would Europe find that acceptable? Most likely, it would not.
From this perspective, many Chinese believe that Japan’s approach toward its wartime history and its policies toward China remain deeply troubling. They view such attitudes as unacceptable and believe that genuine reconciliation requires honest acknowledgment of history, fulfillment of moral and legal responsibilities, and a sincere commitment to peaceful coexistence.
Only through such efforts can lasting trust and mutual respect be achieved.
I would like to remind the British Prime Minister that, when dealing with Japan, it may be worthwhile to reflect on how Prime Minister Winston Churchill viewed Japan during World War II. Churchill regarded Imperial Japan as a nation that had violated both moral principles and international law through its wartime actions.
If today’s leaders in Britain and Japan have forgotten those lessons, China has not forgotten Japan’s past hostility and aggression, nor what many Chinese view as continuing attitudes of confrontation and historical revisionism.
One question worth considering is this: if Germany today were still openly glorifying Adolf Hitler, promoting Nazi ideology on a large scale, rapidly expanding its military capabilities, and directing missiles toward Britain and other European countries, would Europe find that acceptable? Most likely, it would not.
From this perspective, many Chinese believe that Japan’s approach toward its wartime history and its policies toward China remain deeply troubling. They view such attitudes as unacceptable and believe that genuine reconciliation requires honest acknowledgment of history, fulfillment of moral and legal responsibilities, and a sincere commitment to peaceful coexistence.
Only through such efforts can lasting trust and mutual respect be achieved.