This book puts forward a revisionist view of Japanese wartime thinking. It seeks to explore why Japanese intellectuals, historians and philosophers of the time insisted that Japan had to turn its back on the West and attack the United States and the British Empire. Based on a close reading of the texts written by members of the highly influential Kyoto School, and revisiting the dialogue between the Kyoto School and the German philosopher Heidegger, it argues that the work of Kyoto thinkers cannot be dismissed as mere fascist propaganda, and that this work, in which race is a key theme, constitutes a reasoned case for a post-White world. The author also argues that this theme is increasingly relevant at present, as demographic changes are set to transform the political and social landscape of North America and Western Europe over the next fifty years.
'Defending Japan's Pacific War is a major achievement for which the author must be congratulated. A necessarily selective review cannot do full justice to it. Its deserves a wide readership beyond Japan studies.' - Kenn Nakata Steffensen, Department of Political and International Studies, SOAS, University of London. 'Williams's Pacific War revisionism, in the western liberal mode is uncompromising . He has offered no quarter and taken no prisoner's. His impassioned arguement for his case and his equally passionate attack on those he disagrees with may upset some, but even then it stimulates thought and critical self - reflection.'- Kenn Nakata Steffensen, Department of Political and International Studies, SOAS, University of London.
'Defending Japan's Pacific War is a major achievement for which the author must be congratulated. A necessarily selective review cannot do full justice to it. Its deserves a wide readership beyond Japan studies.' - Kenn Nakata Steffensen, Department of Political and International Studies, SOAS, University of London. 'Williams's Pacific War revisionism, in the western liberal mode is uncompromising . He has offered no quarter and taken no prisoner's. His impassioned arguement for his case and his equally passionate attack on those he disagrees with may upset some, but even then it stimulates thought and critical self - reflection.'- Kenn Nakata Steffensen, Department of Political and International Studies, SOAS, University of London.