China puts off release of movie on Japanese biological warfare unit
The release date of the film on local movie ticket purchase apps has been changed from July 31 to 2025, while millions of people online have expressed their interest in the film about the unit, which according to historians conducted biological and chemical warfare research in China during World War II.
The movie's production company has declined to comment on the postponement. Those waiting for the release have shown support for the movie in online posts, saying "history should not be forgotten."
This year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the Sino-Japanese conflict, which Beijing calls the 1937-1945 War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression.
Set in China's northeastern region, the movie conveys an anti-war message and aims to "reveal the crimes" of Unit 731 through a focus on ordinary individuals, according to media reports.
The unit's research is believed to have included lethal experimentation and testing on humans. Prisoners of war were secretly experimented upon to develop, among other things, plague and cholera-based biological weapons, according to historians.
The Japanese government says it has not found any evidence confirming the unit conducted experiments on human subjects.
In 1997, Japan's Supreme Court, in a ruling concerning state screeners' objection to a history textbook's description of the unit's actions in China, said "the view had been established within academic circles to an undeniable extent that Unit 731 had killed many Chinese people through biological experiments."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
41 minutes ago
- Japan Today
Treaty to control nuclear risks under strain 80 years after U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
By Stephen Herzog Eighty years ago – on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945 – the U.S. military dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, thrusting humanity into a terrifying new age. In mere moments, tens of thousands of people perished in deaths whose descriptions often defy comprehension. The blasts, fires and lingering radiation effects caused such tragedies that even today no one knows exactly how many people died. Estimates place the death toll at up to 140,000 in Hiroshima and over 70,000 in Nagasaki, but the true human costs may never be fully known. The moral shock of the U.S. attacks reverberated far beyond Japan, searing itself into the conscience of global leaders and the public. It sparked a movement I and others continue to study: the efforts of the international community to ensure that such horrors are never repeated. Racing toward the brink The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cast a long shadow over global efforts to contain nuclear arms. The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, more commonly known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, was a powerful, if imperfect, effort to prevent future nuclear catastrophe. Its creation reflected not just morality, but also the practical fears and self-interests of nations. As the years passed, views of the bombings as justified acts began to shift. Harrowing firsthand accounts from Hibakusha – the survivors – reached wide audiences. One survivor, Setsuko Thurlow, described the sight of other victims: 'It was like a procession of ghosts. I say 'ghosts' because they simply did not look like human beings. Their hair was rising upwards, and they were covered with blood and dirt, and they were burned and blackened and swollen. Their skin and flesh were hanging, and parts of the bodies were missing. Some were carrying their own eyeballs.' Nuclear dangers increased further with the advent of hydrogen bombs, or thermonuclear weapons, capable of destruction far greater than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What had once seemed a decisive end to a global war now looked like the onset of an era wherein no city or civilization would truly be safe. These shifting perceptions shaped how nations viewed the nuclear age. In the decades following World War II, nuclear technology rapidly spread. By the early 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union aimed thousands of nuclear warheads at one another. Meanwhile, there were concerns that countries in East Asia, Europe and the Middle East would acquire the bomb. U.S. President John F. Kennedy even warned that '15 or 20 or 25 nations' might be able to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s, resulting in the 'greatest possible danger' to humanity – the prospect of its extinction. This warning, like much of the early nonproliferation rhetoric, drew its urgency from the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps the starkest indication of the gravity of the stakes emerged during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. For 13 days, the world teetered on the edge of nuclear annihilation until the Soviet Union withdrew its missiles from Cuba in exchange for the secret withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey. During those long days, U.S. and Soviet leaders – and external observers – witnessed how quickly the risks of global destruction could escalate. Crafting the grand bargain In the wake of such 'close calls' – moments where nuclear war was narrowly averted due to individual judgment or sheer luck – diplomacy accelerated. Negotiations on a treaty to control nuclear proliferation continued at meetings of the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee in Geneva from 1965 to 1968. While the enduring horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped to drive the momentum, national interests largely shaped the talks. There were three groups of negotiating parties. The United States was joined by its NATO allies Britain, Canada, Italy and France – which only observed. The Soviet Union led a communist bloc containing Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. And there were nonaligned countries: Brazil; Burma, now known as Myanmar; Ethiopia; India; Mexico; Nigeria; Sweden, which only joined NATO in 2024; and the United Arab Republic, now known as Egypt. For the superpowers, a treaty to limit the spread of the bomb was as much a strategic opportunity as a moral imperative. Keeping the so-called 'nuclear club' small would not only stabilize international tensions, but it would also cement Washington's and Moscow's global leadership and prestige. U.S. leaders and their Soviet counterparts therefore sought to promote nonproliferation abroad. Perhaps just as important as ensuring nuclear forbearance among their adversaries was preventing a cascade of nuclear proliferation among allies that could embolden their friends and spiral out of control. Standing apart from these Cold War blocs were the nonaligned countries. Many of them approached the atomic age through a humanitarian and moral lens. They demanded meaningful action toward nuclear disarmament to ensure that no other city would suffer the tragic fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nonaligned countries refused to accept a two-tiered treaty merely codifying inequality between nuclear 'haves' and 'have-nots.' In exchange for agreeing to forgo the bomb, they demanded two crucial commitments that shaped the resulting treaty into what historians often describe as a 'grand bargain.' The nonaligned countries agreed in the treaty to permit the era's existing nuclear powers – Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union (later Russia) and the United States – to temporarily maintain their arsenals while committing to future disarmament. But in exchange, they were promised peaceful nuclear technology for energy, medicine and development. And to reduce the risks of anyone turning peaceful nuclear materials into weapons, the treaty empowered the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct inspections around the world. Legacies and limits The treaty entered into force in 1970 and with, 191 member nations, is today among the world's most universal accords. Yet, from the outset, its provisions faced limits. Nuclear-armed India, Israel and Pakistan have always rejected the treaty, and North Korea later withdrew to develop its own nuclear weapons. In response to evolving challenges, such as the discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program in the early 1990s, International Atomic Energy Agency safeguard efforts grew more stringent. Many countries agreed to accept nuclear facility inspections on shorter notice and involving more intrusive tools as part of the initiative to detect and deter the development of the world's most powerful weapons. And the countries of the world extended the treaty indefinitely in 1995, reaffirming their commitment to nonproliferation. The treaty represents a complex compromise between morality and pragmatism, between the painful memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and hard-edged geopolitics. Despite its many imperfections and its de facto promotion of nuclear inequality, the treaty is credited with limiting nuclear proliferation to just nine countries today. It has done so through civilian nuclear energy incentives and inspections that give countries confidence that their rivals are not building the bomb. Countries also put pressure on each other to obey the rules, such as when the international community condemned, sanctioned and isolated North Korea after it withdrew from the treaty and tested a nuclear weapon. But the treaty continues to face serious challenges. Critics argue that its disarmament provisions remain vague and unfulfilled, with some scholars contending that nonnuclear countries should exit the treaty to encourage the great powers to disarm. Nuclear-armed countries continue to modernize – and in some cases, expand – their arsenals, eroding trust in the grand bargain. The behavior of individual countries also points to strains on the treaty. Russia's persistent nuclear threats during its war on Ukraine show how deeply possessors may still rely on these weapons as tools of coercive foreign policy. North Korea continues to wield its nuclear arsenal in ways that undermine international security. Iran might consider proliferation to deter future Israeli and U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities. Still, I would argue that declaring the treaty to be dead is simply premature. Critics have predicted its demise since the treaty's inception in 1968. While many countries have growing frustrations with the existing system of nonproliferation, most of them still see more benefit in staying than walking away from the treaty. The treaty may be embattled, but it remains intact. Worryingly, the world today appears far removed from the vision of avoiding nuclear catastrophe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped awaken. As nuclear dangers intensify and disarmament stalls, moral clarity risks fading into ritual remembrance. I believe that for the sake of humanity's future, the tragedies of the atomic bombings must remain a stark and unmistakable warning, not a precedent. Ultimately, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty's continued relevance depends on whether nations still believe that shared security begins with shared restraint. Stephen Herzog is Professor of the Practice, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Middlebury. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Japan Today
41 minutes ago
- Japan Today
Ishiba not to make statement on 80th anniversary of WWII end
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has decided not to express his views on World War II on the 80th anniversary of its end on Aug 15 but may do so later, government sources said Friday. Although Ishiba, believed to be relatively dovish, has already decided not to have a prime minister's statement approved at a cabinet meeting, he remains eager to offer his perspective and may do so on another occasion, the sources said. Speculation is growing that he will make the announcement on Sept 2, the date Japan signed the instrument of surrender, rather than Aug 15, when hostilities ceased, according to the sources. The government had begun selecting experts for an advisory panel to help draft Ishiba's views, but political events, such as U.S.-Japan tariff negotiations and the July 20 House of Councillors election, led to the postponement of its formation, the sources said. Recently, Ishiba has faced strong internal pressure within his Liberal Democratic Party to step down following its heavy loss in the upper house election, while also working to implement the U.S.-Japan tariff agreement. On the anniversary of the end of World War II, Ishiba is expected to deliver a speech at a national memorial service in Tokyo, organized by the government to mourn the war dead, the sources said. In March, Ishiba visited Iwoto Island, formerly known as Iwojima, the site of a fierce World War II battle between Japan and the United States in the Pacific, for the first time since taking office late last year. During his campaign speeches for the upper house election, in which his ruling coalition lost its majority in the chamber, he highlighted the impact of air raids across Japan, stressing the importance of learning lessons from the war. Japan's prime ministers marked the 50th, 60th, and 70th anniversaries with statements that have been scrutinized by Asian neighbors, including China and South Korea, which experienced Japanese wartime aggression. On the 50th anniversary in 1995, then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, leader of a major left-leaning party, expressed "deep remorse" and offered his "heartfelt apology" for Japan causing damage and suffering to the people of many nations. In 2015, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a conservative, retained key phrases such as "aggression" and "colonial rule" from the statement a decade earlier and acknowledged Japan's past apologies without offering a new one of his own. Conservative members of the LDP argue Abe's statement on the 70th anniversary marked the end of "apology diplomacy," contending that comments by Ishiba on the 80th anniversary may be unnecessary. © KYODO
Japan Today
41 minutes ago
- Japan Today
Fukushima plant's treated wastewater release resumes
Tanks of treated radioactive wastewater are seen at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc has resumed releasing treated radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, after a suspension prompted by tsunami risks from the recent powerful earthquake off Russia's Far East. Workers at the nuclear complex, crippled by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, manually halted the water release Wednesday morning after a tsunami advisory was issued for Fukushima Prefecture. The advisory was later upgraded to a warning. TEPCO said the suspension was part of its natural disaster procedures and that no new irregularities have been found at the plant. The Japanese government decided in April 2021 to discharge the water into the sea, with the first round beginning in August 2023, to facilitate the expected decades-long decommissioning of the nuclear complex. © KYODO
