The strong emotions in Korea and Greater China against Japan (see previous post, The Great Chinese War Against Japan) would not be sustainable without Japan periodically pouring fire accelerants onto the stove.  Once again, it is the time for the new history textbooks to be submitted for screening in Japan.  This happens once every four years, and 2001 was a bad year already.  Although these new history textbooks have not yet been publicly released, some Japanese media have leaked the information about the textbook compiled by Japan's Society for History Textbook Reform already. 
Here is the scene in Seoul (Korea) via UPI:
Throughout this week, a short alley just outside the Japanese Embassy in Seoul was packed by demonstrators protesting Tokyo's claim to South Korean-held islets and Japan's school textbooks, which whitewash Japan's brutal colonial rule over Korea.  Protestors -- from aged women forced to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese imperial army during World War II to Korean War veterans, school students and teachers and to housewives and children -- shouted anti-Japanese slogans and waved South Korean national flags.

Former South Korean military agents scuffled with police as they tried to march into the embassy building.  Scores young protestors also clashed with riot police while trying to scale a wall of the compound at midnight.  The embassy building, its steel gates closed, was almost completely cordoned off as police buses were parked the length of the front wall to keep protesters away.  Thousands of police are stationed along the embassy.
What is the fuss all about?  I am going to translate some comments in the Chinese press (via Peacehall).  As such, I cannot guarantee that the leaked information is truly in the particular textbook or that the excerpts are accurate or representative of the changes to the new edition of this textbook.  However, you should bear in mind that this is what the Chinese are reading now and they are hopping mad.  Read what is listed here, and see if you can tell the Chinese to just get over it ...
________________________________________
Topic #1: The cause of the 1894 Sino-Japanese War
The 2001 edition of the Japanese history textbook removes the reference that the Japanese attacked the Manchurian forces first.  Instead, it used the ambiguous description: "Conflict occurred between the Japanese and Manchurian military forces, and the Sino-Japanese War began." “日清兩軍發生衝突，日清戰爭開始了。”
The proposed 2005 edition goes a step further: "The Manchurians did not want to lose their final tributary state Korea and therefore treated Japan as an enemy.  Japan entered the Sino-Japanese War and the Russian-Japanese War due to these international relationships." “清不想失掉最後的朝貢國朝鮮，開始將日本作爲敵人。日本進行了日清和日俄兩場戰爭，就是由於東亞的這種國際關係。”
The Chinese understanding of this history was that the Sino-Japanese War had its origin in the continental policy formulated at the first Imperial Congress of Japan in 1890 where their territorial interests were directed right at the Korean peninsula and northeastern China.  With these goals, Japan initiated the Sino-Japanese War.  China lost, paid 200 million taels of silver in compensation and ceded Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands to Japan.  At the same time, Japan invaded Korea and attempted to take over the Liaotung Peninsula too.  Due to the intercession of Russia, Germany and France, the Manchurian government paid Japan 300 million taels of silver to 'reclaim' Liaotung.
Topic #2: The 21 Articles
The 2001 edition of the Japanese history textbook claims: "England and the United States objected, and the 21 articles were divided into five groups.  The fifth group contain wishes and was supposed to be treated as secret.  The fifth group requests that the Japanese shall act was political, financial and military advisors for the purpose of purchasing huge amounts of Japanese-manufactured military armaments." “英國和美國提出了抗議，二十一條要求分爲五款，第五款是希望條款，被作爲秘密。第五款要求接受日本人作爲政治、財政和軍事顧問以及大量購買日本制武器。”
The proposed 2005 edition says: "China awaited the interference of the powerful nationals, and therefore leaked the crucial information of the talks to the outside.  Of the five conditions, they even included those that were not requests in order to come up with the name of the 21 articles.'  This caused anti-Japanese sentiments to rise sharply in China."  “中國方面期待列強的介入，向國內外泄露了極爲機密的談判內容，而且在5大條款中，將並非正式要求的事項也列入，製造了‘二十一條要求’的名稱，中國國內的反日輿論開始高漲。”
The Chinese understanding of this history is that Japan announced the '21 articles' to the Yuan Shikai government of China in order to exclude all the other imperialist powers and dictate China alone.  Basically, Yuan Shikai had to agree to these 21 demands in order to get the support of Japan.
Topic #3: The 918 Incident
The 2001 edition states: "After the Japanese Kantogun army assassinated Manchurian warlord Zhang Zuolin with a bomb, it was hoping to increase its control in Manchuria.  Anti-Japanese sentiments were rising in China, and there weremany incidents in which the railway was being attacked.  Moreover, Japan was also facing the threat of Soviet Russia in the north and the Kuomintang army in the south.  Under these circumstances, some of the Kantogun officers made a plan to take over all of Manchuria as the solution."  “關東軍炸死滿洲軍閥張作霖後，希望加強對滿洲的控制，中國人的反日運動激化，不斷發生妨礙列車運行的事態。此外，對日本來說，北面有蘇聯的威脅，南面有國民黨的力量不斷逼近。在這種情況下，部分關東軍軍官制定了通過佔領整個滿洲解決問題的計劃。”
The proposed 2005 edition says: "Following the unification of China by the Kuomintang, anti-Japanese sentiments grew among the Chinese people and there were repeated instances in which the railway was being attacked and Japanese schoolchildren were being harrassed.  Moreover, Japan was also facing the threat of Soviet Russia in the north and the Kuomintang army in the south."  Please note that the last sentence about plotting by the Kangtogun army has now been excised.  “隨著國民黨統一中國的逼近，中國人的反日運動激化，不斷發生妨礙列車運行和迫害日本學童的事件。此外，對日本來說，北面有蘇聯的威脅，南面有國民黨的力量不斷逼近。”
The Chinese understanding was that there was a huge financial crisis in Japan during the spring of 1927, so that the Japanese government wanted exterior expansion to divert attention from its internal problems.  Japan wanted to take over northeastern China, and therefore instisgated the 918 incident.
Topic #4: The Marco Polo Bridge Incident
The 2001 edition states: "On the night of July 7, 1937, someone fired shots at the Japanese army near the Marco Polo bridge outside Beijing.  The next morning, the Japanese army as well as the Chinese Kuomintang army entered into a state of war alertness.  Although people hoped this could be peacefully resolved, Japan soon sent in large number of soldiers and the Kuomintang government announced full mobilization.  Thus began the Sino-Japanese war that lasted eight years."  “1937年7月7日夜，在北京郊外的盧溝橋，發生了有人向日本軍隊開槍的事件。第二天一早，與中國國民黨軍隊之間進入戰鬥狀態。雖然當時人們希望現場解決，但是不久日本方面大規模派兵，國民黨政府也立即發佈了動員令，此後進入了持續8年的日中戰爭。”
The proposed 2005 edition says: "The incident itself was just a small conflict.  Although people hoped that it could be peacefully resolved, conflicts continued to occur with the Japanese side and it became difficult to find a solution."  “事件本身不過是一個小摩擦，雖然人們希望就地解決，但是與日本方面的衝突事件不斷發生，解決變得困難起來。”
The Chinese version starts with the point that the Japanese were illegally present at the location, and the Chinese defenders obviously must defend their national territory.  Prior to July 7, 1937, the Japanese army had also shot at the Chinese.
Topic #5: The Xi'an Incident
The proposed 2005 edition added this new topic, in which the following paragraph appeared: "The Communists got breathing space and the Communist moles burrowed inside the Kuomintang and engaged in destructive and inflammatory activities to lead Japan into war."  In other words, this whole war was started unnecessarily by the Communist provocateurs!  “共產黨獲得了喘息，共產黨員潛入國民黨內部，大肆推進將日本引入戰爭的破壞和挑釁活動。”
The Chinese version obviously does not accept the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory as being normal in any sense.  This is positively obscene!  The Xi'an incident in December 1936 was the precipitating factor that forced the Communists and the Kuomintang to form a united front of all Chinese people against the foreign invaders from Japan.  They didn't need Communist provocateurs to tell them that this was the nation's foremost priority!
Topic #6.  The Nanjing Massacre
The 2001 edition saw the addition of one sentence in parentheses "(At the time, the Japanese army caused many deaths and injuries among the citizens, and this was the Nanjing incident)" “（那時，日本軍隊導致民衆中也出現了很多死傷者，這就是南京事件）”.  Later on, a footnote said: "As for the actual situation in the incident, there are many doubts about the information.  There are many interpretations, and this issue is still being debated."  This obviously dilutes the preceding sentence in parentheses.  “關於事件的實際情況，資料上被發現有很多疑點，存在各種見解，現在仍在爭論。”
In the proposed 2005 edition version, the sentence in parentheses has been deleted.  Under a photograph with the caption "Shanghai city suffered destruction during street battle," the footnote above appears.  Thus, the whole matter of the Nanjing massacre has been eviscerated.
The Chinese version states that in the early morning of December 13, 1937, the Japanese army took over the city of Nanjing and committed atrocities against the civilian population.  After the Second World War, the Tokyo Court has affirmed the war crimes of Japan.  The Chinese believed that about 200,000 to 300,000 people were killed in Nanjing.
Topic #7: Japanese War Losses
In the section on "The Disaster of War" in the 2001 edition, the losses of Japan were listed next to the other countries victimized by Japan, with a long description about the great Tokyo air raid.
In the 2005 edition the losses of the nations victimized by Japan are not mentioned at all while Japan's losses are listed with "the victims of the two totalitarian ideologies."  Emphasis was given to: "Near the end of the Second World War, the United States launched indiscriminate air raids on Tokyo and other cities and dropped atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Meanwhile, Soviet Russia tore up the Japanese-Russian Neutrality Pact and invaded Manchuria and committed looting and violence against Japanese civilians including forcible relocation of about 600,000 Japanese into Siberia where 10% of died from forced labor."  “第二次世界大戰末期，美國對東京等多數城市進行不加區別地空襲，並且在廣島和長崎投下了原子彈。而且，蘇聯撕毀日蘇中立條約，侵入滿洲，不斷發生掠奪、殺害日本平民的暴行，包括日軍俘虜在內的約60萬日本人被強制帶到西伯利亞，被迫從事嚴酷的勞動，約有10％的人死亡”。
Topic #8: Japanese War Crimes
In the 2001 edition, "there is no country that did not harm or mistreat unarmed persons during a war, and Japan is no exception.  In war, the Japanese army mistreated foreign soldiers and civilians through abuse and killing."  “沒有任何一個國家沒有在戰爭中發生過殺害和虐待非武裝人員的行爲，日本也不例外。戰爭中，日本軍隊對於俘虜的敵國士兵和平民進行了不當的殺害和虐待。”
In the proposed 2005 edition, "There is no country that did not harm or mistreat unarmed persons during a war, and Japan is no exception."  There is no mention of any crimes committed by the Japanese military forces.  Since everybody else does it too, it would be cool anyway!  “沒有一個國家在戰爭中沒有任何殺害和虐待非武裝人員的事情，日本也不例外。”
________________________________________
Alright, but the question is just what do the Japanese themselves think?  I mean, they have dug themselves into a deep hole time and again.  But maybe they could care less?
(Asahi Shimbum)  `Asian neighbors' clause.  March 10, 2005.
"Consideration for Japan's Asian neighbors'' is one of the provisions for the screening of public school textbooks by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Specifically, the provision requires that Japan respect the spirit of "international understanding and cooperation'' in its appraisal of history with its Asian neighbors.

But a senior education ministry official has made a comment that effectively negates this provision.  Hakubun Shimomura, a parliamentary secretary in the education ministry and a Lower House member, recently told a lecture meeting in Tokyo: "Ever since this provision was created, schools have become more Marxist-Leninist in leaning to teach a masochistic view of Japanese history. This is something that must not be overlooked, and that is why we have formed a parliamentary league (to consider the future of Japan and history education).'' Shimomura has been secretary-general of this suprapartisan league since its inception.
...

The provision was created in 1982. The harsh censure was made from China and South Korea for Japan's attempt to gloss over its history of invasion of China and colonization of the Korean Peninsula. In response, the Japanese government issued statements to the effect that its sense of remorse for the past remained completely unchanged, and that it would readily heed criticisms against the contents of history textbooks and correct mistakes. Later, at the recommendation of an advisory panel to the education ministry, the provision was added to the textbook screening guideline.

That was not the first time the government voiced remorse for the past. It was mentioned in the Japan-South Korea joint communique of 40 years ago, as well as in a similar joint communique with China 33 years ago. Furthermore, it was in acknowledgement of this remorse that, as recently as in 1998, then-Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi and then-President Kim Dae Jung jointly declared their resolve to build a "future-oriented'' relationship.

The "Asian neighbors'' provision embodies this basic national principle. It has nothing to do with Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Objections to this provision by any senior education ministry official would raise questions about Japan's basic stance. This is hardly in the nation's interest.

Nakayama noted on Shimomura's comment, "Even if we didn't have the provision, that shouldn't change the fact that we need to aim for international understanding and cooperation.'' He is right. Whether we have this provision or not, we must never make light of our history with our neighbors.
Please be mindful that the controversy is raised over one proposed history textbook that has been submitted for screening and may yet be rejected, and that schools can choose to use other textbooks.  The 2001 edition of this book was adopted by only 0.1% of Japan's middle and high schools.  So this is not a mainstream phenomenon, but it manages to be a lightning rod.  The real story here is that a small number of ultra-rightists is pushing their revisionist agenda in the educational system by patiently nibbling at history textbooks one sentence at a time, with the connivance of a few highly placed officials who are contravening a provision of "consideration for Japan's Asian neighbors" in such matters.  What else can the Asians do other than 'give them  hell' every four years?
The presence of this revisionist book in the contested market of history textbooks for students between the ages of 13 to 16 years old also has the effect of subtly changing the positioning of the other textbooks.  Kyodo News reports:
While some of the eight history textbooks approved in the latest round of ministry screenings mentioned wartime sex slaves in simplified terms, most avoided going into detail and none used the term ''comfort women'' where some had done in the past.  In previous screenings in 2001, three of eight history textbooks used either ''comfort women'' or ''comfort facilities.'' This time, only one publisher's textbook had the term ''comfort facilities.''  One of the textbooks referred to wartime sex slavery by simply saying, ''Young women from Korea and other parts of Asia were assembled and sent to the battlefield for Japanese soldiers.''  All textbooks used in the 1997-2001 school years made reference to ''comfort women,'' or women, mostly from Asia, who were forced to work as prostitutes or sex slaves for the Japanese military.
As for the 1937 Nanjing Massacre in China, with the exception of one textbook that says the number of victims ''is said to be as many as 200,000,'' all the textbooks gave no specific numbers, saying only that ''many'' were killed.  Prior to the previous screening in 2001, six of seven history textbooks gave specific figures.
________________________________________
Chronology of Textbook Issues

1872 School Ordinance
1883 Textbook Approval System
1886 Textbook Authorization System
1904 The nationalization of textbooks for elementary schools.
1945 The GHQ suspends moral education, Japanese history, and geography. The GHQ orders ultranationalism and militarist sections in textbooks of other subjects blacked out.
1946 The first postwar history textbook Kuni no Ayumi (“The Footsteps of a Nation”), authorized by the GHQ.
1949 Textbook Authorization System
1955 The then-Democrat Party, one of forerunners of the LDP (Liberal Democrat Party), publishes a series of three important reports, entitled The Deplorable Textbooks.
1958 The Course of Study becomes legally binding.
1962 Free Textbooks
1965 Ienaga Textbook Controversy Suit (first case)
1967 Ienaga Textbook Controversy Suit (second case)
1970 Tokyo Regional Court Judge Sugimoto declares the Textbook Authorization System unconstitutional and illegal.
1982 The Textbook Controversy of “The Invasion of China”.  In June 1982, Japanese major newspapers announced that Japan’s “invasion (shinryaku)” to China during the 1930s had been changed into Japan’s “advance (shinko)” of China in a new high school textbook for 1983 after the textbook screening by the MOE. In July, the Korean and Chinese governments protested to the Japanese government about this change. The MOE replied that this charge was in fact wrong and that there was no actual textbook, which was changed from “invasion” to “advance” to China, though there was one for the South East Asia. In August 1982, Miyazawa Kiichi, Chief Cabinet Secretary apologized to the Chinese and Korean governments. He promised that the Japanese government improve the criteria of screening textbooks for the war responsibility of Japan and make efforts to emphasize friendship and cooperation with neighboring countries when screening textbooks in the future.
1984 Ienaga Textbook Controversy Suit (third case)
1986 The Textbook Authorization System approves a High School History (Shinpen Nihonshi) textbook by the rightwing organization.
1989 The 1989 Course of Study for six-grade social studies requires textbook to mention 42 historical figures including Togo Heihachiro, a war hero of the Japan Sea Battle agains Russia during the Russo-Japan War. The Tokyo High Court declares that it is no benefit to judge the second Ienaga case because the case is too old. The plaintiff, Ienaga lost.
1993 The Supreme Court dismisses the first Ienaga case. The plaintiff, Ienaga lost.
1995 The Liberal View of History Study Group is formed.
1996 The Society for the Making of New History Textbooks is formed.
1997 The Supreme Court declares that the four cases: “Troop Somo,” Nanking Massacre, Unit 731 and the rape of women were “illegally” forced to change by the government’s screeners, and that the government compensate him for 400,000 yen. But the Supreme Court confirms the constitutionality of the Textbook Authorization System. The plaintiff, Ienaga partially won his third case.
2001 The Textbook Authorization System approves a history textbook and a civics textbook written by the Society for the Making of New History Textbooks.
P.S.  I have not look this up, but I am intrigued by what this textbook has to say about Pearl Harbor?  Would there be an international scandal if it insists that the Americans forced the Pearl Harbor attack on the Japanese, who had no options left?  How would Americans take such a viewpoint?