The war ended nearly 50 years ago and yet the truth of the Japanese Occupation years in many parts of Southeast Asia has not been fully known. Opinions on whether it was a “holy war” or “one of aggression” are still divided in Japan. In other words, it is still a very sensitive issue. As a result, academic research on the subject has been restrained to some extent.<br>The book's reviewer gives high regards to efforts made by the author in ploughing through voluminous historical records and materials when doing the research in an attempt to achieve objectivity. But at the same time, the reviewer also voices her disagreement with some views held by the author in the book. They include:<br>1. The great extent with which details of activities and policies carried out by the Japanese military government, both the positive and negative ones, and the impact they created are reported in the book. Some of them, which seem to be mere facts and observations, appear unconvincing for lack of sufficient evidence. The author's views on “Tonarigumi” is one example.<br>2. On the author's view that certain policies carried out under Japan's military rule had brought about some “unexpected contributions”, the reviewer disagrees, pointing to the fact that all policies spelt out then were based on one central national objective, which was to serve Japan's interest in the domination of others during that time. Under such circumstances, therefore, when policies being implemented could not achieve results as desired by the political masters, they should not even be evaluated at all and be viewed as some kind of “contributions”. They were matters of a different nature, and should not be put together on equal footing for elaboration or discussion purposes.<br>3. On the role of “Senmukan”, those who implemented cultural policies and others who led in agricultural development, the author held some very positive views on them, believing that their “good personal intentions” should not be dismissed all together simply by such term as “invasion”. The reviewer, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the so-called “Senmukan” and the other two groups were all organised groups under the command of the Japanese military government. Thus, even if some of them held very “strong ideas and views on Asianism”, one should not therefore interpret or explain it as their general good feelings towards the people in Southeast Asia.