Seems like shallow nitpicking over phrasing. The cultural context is different, the era was different, and the social class context is different, making the criticism unpersuasive.
> Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to ensure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.
That is a flat-out lie, and no amount of "the context was different" can make it anything other than a flat-out lie. Some of the other parts were bad, but that bit was absolutely egregious.
So no, I don't think it's "shallow nitpicking over phrasing". Hirohito was either in total denial about what the war actually was, or he was lying through his teeth.
If the author is expecting the center of the Japanese cult of emperor worship, a literal living god to his subjects, to admit wrongdoing or fallibility, particularly when his only control over the situation is entirely rooted in the fact he was considered a living god and even then barely avoided a military coup attempt the night before in spite of even that, then, yes, he does not understand the historical context. Of course Hirohito lied through his teeth; he had to.
Had nothing to do with Europeans and gunboat diplomacy and colonialism? Have never been fond of imperial Japan and their atrocious behavior in Asia but it is quite disingenuous to consider Japan's behavior only from the 1930 and onward. To fairly consider the matter it is necessary to broaden the scope both in terms of nations involved and the timeline. An honest consideration of the historic events likely should start with the Opium War.
