Around 30 million people were killed since the hostilities got initiated by Japan from 1937. This was a staggering growth, only if the data could be extended further to the invasion of Japanese in 1931 of Manchuria.
Currently, Japan is perceived to be one of the few countries that have internalized the war lessons and lack a better expression of being dependable or trusted towards democratic norms. There is less confidence in this count among observers that has given rise to a contradictory result. The contradictory result is the capability of Japan to maintaining an international liberal democratic rule that depends upon the extent to which traits were purged by it. This also resulted in some of the biggest atrocities of the 20th century and for which the postwar was developed.
In this perspective, the question of whether Japan has really evolved and changed since the end of World War II is essential and not just academic. However, one of the biggest causes for concern can be the leadership of Japan among international powers, if the imperialist seed is still existing.
Most are generally pleased witnessing the proactive role taken by Japan, but the reception of the Japanese leadership prospects are still colored by the imperialist legacy. The idea that nothing has been learned by or changed in Japan cannot be acknowledged.
This is apparent from its emperor’s role, the veto points throughout the policy and political process, the nature of its political debates, the manner in which international strategy has been ordered by Japan since World War II, the remilitarization costs (absolute and relative), the acceptance of negative public opinion by political leadership, and ignoring the role of public opinion. In total, remilitarization is not preferred by Japan and it has significant proof to assure that. This alone is enough to highlight that Japan indeed has changed and evolved over the centuries.