Introduction
Manila, the capital city of the Philippines, was the site of the Second World War’s fiercest urban battle between Japan and the United States from 3 February to 3 March 1945, which resulted in enormous damage to property and the equally devastating loss of human lives. So severe was the impact of the battle that an article by Hitoshi Nagai juxtaposed Manila’s fate with that of Hiroshima, the first city to have experienced the destructive effects of an atomic bomb.Footnote 1 The damage inflicted by the war on the two cities was comparable, as Manila was the second most destroyed Allied city of the war. However, while Hiroshima has been elevated as a global anti-war symbol, there is scant remembrance of Manila’s ordeals in the darkest month of its history.
Several scholars have problematised this ‘forgetting’ of the Battle of Manila. For Nagai, the battle was ‘preliminary’ and ‘part of the historical background leading up to the [atomic] bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki’.Footnote 2 It was muted, at least for the Japanese public, by the atomic bomb’s shock value. For Satoshi Nakano, a ‘virtuous circle of apology and forgiveness’ centring on the Battle of Manila has been established between Japan and the Philippines, and positive relations have been maintained between governments and even the respective associations of the war-dead descendants.Footnote 3 However, Nakano warned that while the reconciliation was effective for the war’s contemporaries, it has diminished the preservation of war memories of mass atrocities to the extent that the transfer of institutional public memory to succeeding generations in Japan and the Philippines has been prevented. The ‘amnesia’ resulting from this lack of war past awareness could undermine the foundations set in the postwar years.Footnote 4
It has been 80 years since the end of the Pacific War and the Battle of Manila, and in recent years, there has been a noticeable resurgence of contentious issues rooted in the Philippines’ war past. In 2018, a statue memorialising the Filipina comfort women was unceremoniously removed by the government a few months after its erection following expressions of dissatisfaction from the Japanese Embassy in Manila. The removal provoked urgent indignation from activist groups and lawmakers in the Philippines, but then-President Rodrigo Duterte defended the action, emphasising that it was not his government’s policy to antagonise other nations.Footnote 5 The transnational comfort women redress movement has Filipino counterparts, and these groups have been campaigning for recognition and justice for survivors of sexual slavery since the 1990s. In 2023, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women found the Philippines in violation of the Filipina comfort women’s rights, citing the government’s failure to offer sufficient reparations, social support and recognition.Footnote 6 Contrary to the approaches of Korea and China, the Philippine government has largely avoided addressing the comfort women issue, even hindering its memorialisation. Various factors, including international pressure, local activism and regional memory politics, could be contributing to the resurgence of these discussions. Moreover, the potential for the contentious war past to resurface, such as the East Asian memory ‘boom,’ remains a possibility in Southeast Asia.Footnote 7
The reactivation of the comfort women redress movement and its active advocacy in the Philippines prompted us to revisit and critically re-evaluate a significant war episode on the periphery of Filipino collective memory: the Battle of Manila.Footnote 8 Unlike the comfort women issue, there has been relatively little discussion about the contentious nature of this war episode or the profound suffering the battle has caused among Manila’s residents. Therefore, we ask: How and why has such a significant event become obscured despite its historical impact? Which elements of the battle are remembered, and in what ways are these memories preserved and transmitted by contemporary generations?
We utilise the ubiquity of digital media to uncover the contemporary appreciation and remembrance of the Battle of Manila in an attempt to offer answers to these questions. Digital media has fundamentally changed how violence is remembered as it enabled the rise of new memory agents and pluralised the remembrance of the past.Footnote 9 We centre our analysis on transnational public discourses on YouTube, the world’s largest and most popular video-hosting platform. YouTube serves as a critical space for creating, disseminating and consuming media content, offering ‘a democratising potential for collective remembrance as it allows users to experience the past outside official frames of reference’, which also fuels the creativity of the remembrance methods.Footnote 10 YouTube’s global reach enables transnational dialogue, and its prominence in the Philippines has spurred a wealth of multimedia content on the country’s wartime history, including the Battle of Manila. As the memorialisation of the battle has been primarily taken up by the Manila local government and a private group of the victims’ descendants, we seek to discover how the larger public remembers the battle by taking advantage of YouTube’s comment sections where spirited debates and conversations are ignited in videos related to the battle.Footnote 11 This ‘everyday digital communication’ provides ‘unique insights into vernacular memory discourses of postwar individuals that connect on shared interests’ and traverses age, social class and national divides.Footnote 12 Through YouTube, we can glean the appreciation of war pasts from the vantage point of the generation that came after, those who ‘remember’ through stories, images and behaviours inherited from their predecessors.Footnote 13 Marianne Hirsch termed this concept as ‘postmemory’, which describes the relationship that the postgeneration bears to the personal, collective and cultural trauma of those who came before them. Thus, the mediation of postmemory through digital platforms enables the capture and sharing of experiences and memories of traumatic events that, unlike traditional forms of memory transmission, allows for interactive engagement.Footnote 14
By analysing the postmemory shared in YouTube comment sections, we demonstrate the impact of the marginalisation of the Battle of Manila on the intergenerational transmission of war memories. This exploration allowed us to contextualise the Battle of Manila within the broader Pacific War, examine the extant vernacular discourses surrounding the battle, and understand how these discourses shape the battle’s place in transnational spaces of memory. Our findings highlight that online discussions regarding the Battle of Manila seldom lead to issues of justice and accountability, indicating a persistent and expanding narrative of marginalisation concerning the battle’s human cost.
The sections are structured as follows. First, we provide a historical background on the Battle of Manila. Next, we explore the utility of digital platforms in understanding the transmission of war memory. We then detail our methodology and data sampling, introducing the videos from which the comments were sourced. The subsequent section presents the three discourses identified from our analysis: veteran and civilian postmemory, the destruction of Manila’s infrastructure, and discourses on justice and accountability. Finally, we conclude with a synthesis and some insights on digital platforms and the transmission of war memory.
The Battle of Manila
Unfolding against the backdrop of the Philippines’ long and tumultuous history under foreign rule, the Battle of Manila is a pivotal event of the Second World War. Manila, the capital city established during Spanish colonial times, became a significant urban centre by the early twentieth century. Under the United States, the city’s strategic and symbolic importance grew, embodying the architectural grandeur of its colonial past and the burgeoning aspirations of a nation on the cusp of independence.
The prelude to the battle was set against Asia in the throes of war and colonial reconfigurations. The United States’ annexation of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War embedded Manila within the sphere of U.S. geopolitical interests. The establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth in 1935 under U.S. oversight marked the beginning of a transitional period to prepare the country for eventual independence. However, this promise of sovereignty was abruptly challenged by the spectre of Japanese expansionism, prompting a frantic militarisation of the Philippines under the supervision of the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) commanded by General Douglas MacArthur.
The swift Japanese invasion, following closely on the heels of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, caught the Allied forces unprepared, prompting a strategic withdrawal and the declaration of Manila as an ‘open city’ in a futile attempt to prevent its destruction. The ensuing fall of Bataan and Corregidor in 1942 precipitated the infamous Bataan Death March, where 75,000 Filipino and U.S. prisoners of war were forced to trek over 100 kilometres, suffering starvation, disease and executions.Footnote 15 During the Japanese occupation, the Philippines endured severe repression, marked by economic devastation, oppressive control measures and a ruthless suppression of both actual and suspected resistance efforts. The severity of the occupation galvanised the Philippine resistance movement, which waged a relentless campaign of guerrilla warfare against the Japanese occupiers, making the Philippines one of the most inhospitable territories for Japanese forces in the region.Footnote 16
As the conflict dynamics shifted, the Allies initiated a key counteroffensive with a strategic landing in Leyte, located on the eastern side of the Visayas island group, in October 1944, marking the beginning of the Philippine liberation effort. By late January 1945, a significant portion of the Imperial Japanese Forces, from an original strength of approximately 270,000, withdrew from Manila to the northern mountains of Luzon, leaving over 80,000 troops in Central and Southern Luzon, including Manila. General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the supreme commander of the Japanese forces in the Philippines, and other leaders later asserted in postwar tribunals that they deemed Manila indefensible, ordering a retreat to conduct a prolonged battle in the eastern mountains.Footnote 17 Despite these orders, about 20,000 army and navy personnel remained and formed the Manila Defence Forces that prepared to face the advancing U.S. forces. February 1945 witnessed the intense battle for Manila, with U.S. forces aiming to retake a city held by entrenched Japanese troops. The Manila Naval Defense Force, led by Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi and composed of poorly equipped troops, led this fierce resistance, resulting in one of the Second World War’s most brutal urban conflicts.Footnote 18
The U.S. assault on Manila was characterised by a determination to liberate interned civilians and prisoners of war, with significant early successes such as the rescue operations at the Santo Tomas Internment Camp and the Bilibid Prison.Footnote 19 However, the battle quickly degenerated into a hellish struggle, with the Japanese forces resorting to massacres of civilians amidst the chaos. The indiscriminate killing of Filipinos, often under the pretext of combating guerrillas, highlighted the brutal tactics employed by the besieged Japanese troops. As U.S. forces tightened their grip around Japanese positions, the latter’s resistance grew more ferocious, culminating in widespread destruction and loss of civilian life. The bombardment of Manila by U.S. artillery, intended to dislodge Japanese defenders, also contributed significantly to the civilian death toll and the physical ruin of the city. The battle’s aftermath left Manila devastated, with an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and its cultural heritage in ruins.Footnote 20
War pasts and digital platforms
It is striking how an event as significant as the Battle of Manila has been marginalised in the collective memory of both Japan and the Philippines. In Japan, coverage of the battle remains scant in the media, while in the Philippines, national commemoration has predominantly focused on other aspects of the war, notably the episodes involving soldiers and prisoners of war, such as those at Bataan and Corregidor.Footnote 21 Furthermore, the scholarly work on the Battle of Manila primarily concentrates on historical inquiries, leaving the themes of remembrance and memorialisation notably underexplored.Footnote 22 Our study aims to bridge this gap, capitalising on the widespread reach of digital platforms in the dissemination of information about wartime histories.
The rise of digital platforms has fundamentally altered the transmission and perception of war memories, establishing new avenues for public engagement beyond conventional education and formal commemoration channels. While scholars have traditionally approached war pasts, memories and legacies from the perspectives of political and cultural elites, the digital era introduces an expansive field for examining the dissemination of war memories across the wider populace.Footnote 23 Andrew Hoskins suggests that digital media has ushered in a ‘new memory ecology’ that may not adhere to coherence, stability and depth, challenging the broader issue of authority in representing the past.Footnote 24
The inherent nature of the internet, with its allowance or encouragement for anonymity, compounds the challenge of determining the representativeness and authority of digital voices in commemorating and remembering war memories. Digital platforms can also serve as spaces that reinforce existing stereotypes and divisions influenced by cultural and contextual differences.Footnote 25 Platforms like YouTube have made efforts to moderate content and public forums, but hostile and aggressive speech persists. Nevertheless, the benefits of open spaces outweigh the disadvantages.Footnote 26 The proliferation of digital media and the rise of new memory agents have diversified the landscape of remembrance.Footnote 27 Digital platforms witness a surge in varied discourses on war memory that reshape the contemporary appreciation of war pasts. While these digital expressions of remembrance operate within existing power dynamics, they offer a unique window into understanding the perspectives on war memories held by today’s generation, opening avenues for a more inclusive and multifaceted historical dialogue.
Digital platforms enable diverse participants to engage in acts of remembrance that transcend state and ethnic boundaries.Footnote 28 This liberation of memory from traditional confines has led to what Andrew Hoskins describes as the ‘connective turn’, an ontological shift that redefines memory through the dense and diffused social networks people increasingly inhabit.Footnote 29 Connective memories manifest as ‘moments of connection in ever-changing networks situated locally in everyday life’, taking various forms.Footnote 30 This conceptualisation suggests that digital platforms alter the landscape of war memory analysis and fundamentally change how individuals relate to and remember the past. The challenge for researchers and scholars is to navigate this complex, evolving terrain to understand how digital platforms contribute to and shape our collective memory of war.
We investigate vernacular war memory discourses on YouTube because it has established itself as the world’s most popular social media platform (in terms of web and mobile-based app activity), with a significant number of subscribers from younger generations.Footnote 31 It is particularly popular in the Philippines, with a record-high subscription and the country’s growing population considered the platform’s top market.Footnote 32 Consequently, our turn to YouTube commentary as a primary source represents a shift in focus from the event itself to its contemporary resonance.
The historiography of the Battle of Manila has developed along distinct trajectories. Military historians, drawing on unit-level operational records and after-action reports housed at the U.S. Army Center of Military History, have reconstructed the tactical dimensions of urban combat.Footnote 33 The Yamashita trial transcripts provided early documentation of Japanese atrocities, though Cold War geopolitics subsequently muted scholarly attention to these sources.Footnote 34 Filipino historians, including survivor-writers such as Carmen Guerrero Nakpil, have contributed testimonial accounts that foreground civilian suffering.Footnote 35 More recently, Satoshi Nakano has examined the postwar politics of reconciliation between Japan and the Philippines,Footnote 36 while the Memorare Manila 1945 Foundation, a civic group, has compiled oral histories and correspondence that preserve survivor perspectives.Footnote 37 Our study complements these documentary and testimonial approaches by examining how the battle circulates as mediated memory among audiences who encounter it primarily through digital content.
Multiple studies have interrogated Philippine political and historical communication on YouTube, but they have largely been focused on the platform’s role in the production and circulation of content relating to the country’s authoritarian past in light of contemporary political developments. However, our focus shifts to the Philippine war past, specifically the Battle of Manila, to uncover transnational and vernacular discourses that relate to war memories and their potential implications for politics and the remembrance of war pasts.
Despite YouTube being extensively explored as a medium for contested heritage narratives and the two world wars being a dominant subject of study, there exists a noticeable void in scholarship regarding non-European contexts.Footnote 38 As mentioned in this special issue’s introduction, countries of the Global South are largely neglected in memory studies, and Southeast Asian war memories, particularly those related to the Pacific War, remain marginalised within academic discourse.Footnote 39 This omission overlooks the region’s rich diversity of memory practices and the depth of historical contestation.Footnote 40 We aim to bridge this gap by focusing on a pivotal battle in the Philippine war experience, approaching the event from a transnational perspective that could enrich our understanding of the global narrative of the Pacific War. We take advantage of the blurring or dissolving of boundaries facilitated by new technologies, which, as this special issue argues, have made memory mobile and memory work connective.
Analysing Battle of Manila video commentary on YouTube
We adopted a sequential mixed-method analysis of the user commentary from the Battle of Manila videos to filter and make sense of the large commentary data set sourced from YouTube.Footnote 41 This methodology comprises two phases: a quantitative research phase for data scraping, filtering and evaluation, followed by a qualitative phase that utilises computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. This dual-phase approach ensures that the comments analysed qualitatively represent a comprehensive sample from all videos on the Battle of Manila.
The quantitative phase commenced with the use of YouTube Scraper, an open-source tool, to collect a dataset of videos on the Battle of Manila. On 2 January 2024, we executed the query ‘Battle of Manila’ with and without quotation marks, yielding 584 results. By opting for a scraper over YouTube’s native search engine, we were able to bypass YouTube’s personalisation algorithm. We then refined the list by excluding irrelevant videos, such as those discussing the 1898 Battle of Manila Bay, and videos not in English. Our decision to focus on English language videos and commentary was mainly because it is the lingua franca in the United States and the Philippines, the main actors of the battle. Thus, we could better reflect the networked publics created by a shared interest in the Battle of Manila.Footnote 42 In addition, the videos in English garnered the most views and user commentary. Despite our limited proficiency in Japanese, which precluded a comparative analysis with Japanese media and commentary on YouTube, self-identifying Japanese commenters in English provide some insight into their perspectives, albeit limited. Videos with fewer than 10 comments were also excluded due to time constraints and the lack of substantial discussion. The final selection comprised 49 videos, garnering 20.3 million views and 29,004 comments.
We find that the videos in our sample rely heavily on remixing and incorporating archival war footage that are predominantly sourced from two films. The first and most frequently used is ‘Battle of Manila’, episode 417 of the television show The Big Picture, which aired in 1959 and was produced by the U.S. Army’s Office of the Chief Information Officer with the assistance of the U.S. Army Signal Corps and the Army Pictorial Service.Footnote 43 The episode opens with the show’s host, Sergeant Stuart Queen, talking about a chance encounter he witnessed between a U.S. veteran from the Battle of Manila and a former prisoner of war liberated from the Santo Tomas Internment Camp. The two shared their experiences, focusing significantly on the reentry in Manila, the liberation of Santo Tomas, and the street-to-street combat during the battle. The narrative, framed from a human interest angle, is quite plainly a military recruitment tool that glorifies military life and recounts war events within the framework of heroism, sacrifice, duty and patriotism. The depiction of the Battle of Manila, particularly the scenes in Intramuros, emphasises the challenges of urban combat, especially the difficulty in penetrating the walled city’s formidable fortifications. There is little footage depicting civilian casualties, and while civilian suffering is acknowledged, it is not prominently featured, as the intent is clearly to focus on the experiences of U.S. soldiers during the battle. A version of this film, titled ‘Battle of Manila | 1945 | Liberation of the Philippines by the US Army | Documentary’, uploaded by the channel ‘The Best Film Archives’, is the most viewed video in our sample, at 4.5 million views, while also garnering the third most number of comments at 3,991.
The second film prominently remixed is a 1945 short film, Orders from Tokyo, produced by the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines and the United States Office of Strategic Services.Footnote 44 This film, presented in Technicolour, opens with then Brigadier General Carlos P. Romulo informing the audience that the film will be part of the evidence submitted to convict the ‘leaders of a nation devoid of all human decency’ of war crimes, such as the ‘savage premeditated destruction of the city of Manila’ under ‘direct orders from Tokyo’. The film then shifts to the eyewitness narration of Captain David Griffin, who also captured the footage. Unlike the first video, this film focuses solely on the Battle of Manila and the events of February 1945. It details the atrocities committed by the Japanese, such as the shelling of Santo Tomas, the killing of prisoners and the brutal massacre of civilians. Harrowing tales of the massacre at the Red Cross building, the burning alive of people at the Spanish consulate, and the execution of civilians are also detailed, along with the challenging battle to reclaim key buildings like the city hall, post office and Intramuros, accompanied by footage of suffering civilians and dead bodies.
Other videos that are mainly archival footage in our sample are primarily from newsreels or cinematic films depicting news stories, which gained significant popularity in the 1940s in the United States due to the demand for information about the ongoing war in Europe and the Pacific.Footnote 45 In total, our sample includes 15 clips or entire reuploads of archival short films and newsreels, collectively amassing around 8.4 million views.
A substantial portion of our sample comprises documentaries, with 20 videos in this category. Of these, 12 are produced by independent YouTube channels specialising in historical or war-related content, two by the United States government agencies, three by the Philippine government agencies, two by traditional media and one is an independent production. Together, these documentaries account for 9.6 million views. They primarily offer in-depth, factual information about the Battle of Manila, often incorporating contemporary interviews, expert analysis, historical narratives, while heavily remixing wartime footage. This group stands out for its production quality, utilising visual materials such as footage, maps, diagrams, interviews and occasionally creative reenactments to enhance storytelling. Documentaries also tend to attract the most commenters. The most commented video, with 6,544 comments and three million views, is titled ‘Asian Stalingrad – The Battle of Manila 1945’ from the channel ‘Mark Felton Productions’. Mark Felton is a military historian and popular YouTuber who operates several channels focusing on the world wars and the Cold War. We find that there is not much variation on the retelling of the Battle of Manila in documentaries, as they rely on the same war footage and the established historical narrative of the battle in telling its story.
Another category in our sample consists of creative renditions of the battle that blend other popular media or use animation for a more entertaining effect. Of the five videos in this category, one stands out: ‘Attack on Titan Season 4 Opening but it’s WW2 (Battle of Manila (1945) Edition)’ from the channel ‘NikolaiPro’. With two million views and 4,591 comments, the video uses the opening theme song from the popular anime Attack on Titan as background to archival footage of the Battle of Manila, drawing parallels between the anime’s violence and the historical battle. The rest of the videos are short animations that found inspiration from the battle, and were mostly enjoyed by anime and gaming enthusiasts.
Finally, rounding out the videos in our sample are three personal vlogs featuring slideshows from the battle or visits to memorial sites, two videos featuring clips from the 1968 Filipino film Manila, Open City, two recorded academic lectures and one recorded theatrical reenactment of battle scenes. These videos account for the least number of views (2,000 to 45,000) and comments (28 to 56).
Discourses from user commentary on the Battle of Manila on YouTube
We treat the user commentary from our video sample as our main data pool to uncover the emerging public discourses related to the battle. Numerous studies have leveraged YouTube comments as a source of freely accessible public data, encompassing international and intergenerational audiences.Footnote 46 It is through these comments that YouTube’s participatory framework as a media platform becomes evident. For instance, YouTube comments can serve as a venue for individuals to anonymously express their opinions on video content, enabling them to share their views without engaging with other commenters. Conversely, these comments can also facilitate direct interactions, where users engage with and recognise each other in discussions that extend beyond the video’s topic.Footnote 47 Consequently, discussions in YouTube comments, while initially prompted by the video, often evolve into broader conversations extending beyond the video’s topic. YouTube comments have thus been extensively analysed as a viable source of ‘socially significant knowledge about users, videos, and community interests in general’.Footnote 48 However, we also recognise that not all YouTube comments are relevant, as many might be spam created by bots or plainly off-topic. To identify comments specifically related to the Battle of Manila, we first imported all comments from the selected videos into MAXQDA.Footnote 49 We then crafted a keyword dictionary incorporating various English terms related to war, violence, memory and family. This dictionary was used to filter the comments, and the resulting dataset was manually cleaned to eliminate duplicates and irrelevant or unintelligible comments. This process culminated in a final dataset of 989 comments, 607 of which were top-level comments, while the remainder were replies. These comments were autocoded accordingly, which enables us to revisit the dialogue between users whenever relevant to our analysis.
We used MAXQDA to code these comments qualitatively. Initially, we independently identified a range of inductive categories and subcategories, which were then harmonised to form a unified coding scheme comprising 15 codes. The independent coding process achieved an intercoder agreement rate of 85.14 per cent. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus on code assignment was reached. The final coding scheme and code frequency are detailed in Table 1. Utilising MAXQDA’s visual tools, we mapped the relationships between codes and visualised these connections in a network map (see Figure 1), which helped facilitate an analysis of code intersections and their implications. The insights derived from examining the clusters of codes within the network map are discussed in subsequent sections.
Intersection code map of YouTube commentary on videos of the Battle of Manila (Source: Visualised by the authors using MAXQDA)
Figure 1 Long description
The network map visualizes coded themes from YouTube commentary on the Battle of Manila. Nodes represent themes such as Family heritage and memories, War veteran’s stories, Civilian experiences, Civilian suffering and casualties, War trauma, Calls to remember, Personal acts of remembrance, Comparison of war crimes across nations, Moral and ethical reflections on war crimes, Perceptions of justice and accountability, Post-war reconstruction, Damage to infrastructure, Impact of modernisation on cultural heritage, Attitudes toward the United States and Attitudes toward Japan. Lines between nodes indicate relationships or co-occurrence of themes. Attitudes toward the United States and Attitudes toward Japan are central hubs with multiple connections to other nodes, forming dense subnetworks. Family heritage and memories and War veteran’s stories are connected to civilian-related themes. Peripheral nodes like Damage to infrastructure and Impact of modernisation on cultural heritage have fewer connections. Node shapes and sizes do not encode additional meaning and line weights are uniform, indicating equal relationship strength. The map helps identify clusters and hubs within the commentary themes, facilitating analysis of code intersections.
Frequency of Coded Segments
Table 1 Long description
The table lists thematic codes with their counts of coded segments and their share of the total. Family heritage and memories is the largest category with 395 segments, representing about one quarter of all coding. The next most common themes are damage to infrastructure at 184 and attitudes toward the United States at 183, each a little over one tenth. Mid-range categories include attitudes toward Japan at 133, war veteran’s stories at 131, and civilian experiences at 110. Lower-frequency themes include civilian suffering and casualties at 84, perceptions of justice and accountability at 77, post-war reconstruction at 65, and personal acts of remembrance at 63. The least frequent codes are calls to remember at 37 and war trauma at 30, each under three percent. All categories sum to 1,616 coded segments and the percentages add to the full distribution, so values reflect relative prevalence rather than importance or impact.
Source: Authors.
Discourses on veteran and civilian postmemory
The most prominent cluster of codes in the data deal with the sharing of postmemory, mainly by individuals who find the videos they watch to resonate with stories told to them by their family members. These memories, privately shared between parent and child or grandparent and grandchild, are activated by watching related content and finding new life in the comment sections of YouTube videos. As Eva Hoffman argued, people born after a tragedy inherently grasp its ‘inward meaning’ before learning about its specific details and broader implications.Footnote 50 This postgeneration perceives initial knowledge of such violence through the limited understanding of a child, suggesting a journey from an intuitive feeling of the event’s impact to a more detailed comprehension of its facts and outcomes. Content presented through YouTube serves as a vector for this purpose.
In our data, we find prominent postmemory-sharing from those with relatives who fought the war as soldiers or resistance fighters. We find this logical as the videos in our sample retell the narrative of the battle using wartime footage taken by soldiers that tend to visualise the war from a military perspective. These videos thus prompt the participants to recount narratives handed down from their family members, with remarkable detail, such as names, locales and chronological events. For example, @kate16432Footnote 51 talked about their grandfather, a U.S. war veteran sharing his name, position, and location during the battle, including several anecdotes such as bouts of illnesses, close brushes with death and even his weight by the end of the war. This richness of detail, predominantly observed in the recollections of descendants of U.S. military veterans, may reflect a broader cultural openness towards the intergenerational transmission of memory within the United States. It suggests that combat and military service narratives are deeply embedded within the national consciousness, often celebrated as a core component of personal and collective identity.Footnote 52 The valourisation of military service in U.S. or Filipino societies fosters a remembrance culture that elevates these narratives to communal pride and honour.
A major theme in the stories of war veterans in the user commentary is the shared sacrifice and heroism of soldiers and guerrilla fighters, which highlights the collaboration between the United States and the Philippines in the fight against Japan. Many commenters, mainly from the United States, speak of their grandfather’s personal stories about the end of the war in the Philippines, while Filipino commenters relay stories of their grandfather’s role as USAFFE soldiers and as guerrilla fighters. Thus, the videos of the Battle of Manila become a narrative anchor that enables the recounting of various experiences and stories extending beyond the battle to encapsulate broader facets of the Pacific War. A consistent theme interwoven within these collective remembrances evident in the commentary is the imperative to acknowledge and commemorate the valour of those who served — a sentiment that underscores both respect for their sacrifices and recognition of the heroic legacy of their relatives.
Civilian narratives of the war, told from the postmemory shared by their kin, also constitute a prominent thematic cluster. These narratives starkly foreground instances of brutality and violence, with a distinct emphasis on the atrocities perpetrated by Japanese forces against civilians. The recounting of such atrocities, including but not limited to murder, rape, pillage, and the callous use of civilians as objects of amusement, underscores the depth of suffering endured not merely during the Battle of Manila but throughout the prolonged years of conflict. Predominantly articulated by Filipino contributors, these civilian narratives broaden the scope of wartime experiences beyond the predominantly male-centric tales of military veterans to encompass diverse perspectives across gender, age and social class. The indiscriminate nature of the violence inflicted upon the civilian population emerges vividly within these accounts, illustrating the widespread impact of the conflict on Filipino society.
The complexity of relationships between civilians and occupiers was also represented in the commentary data set. Amidst the predominant narratives of Japanese brutality and the widespread atrocities committed against the Filipino population, there are nuanced anecdotes that recount moments of compassion and humanity. These stories, while relatively few compared to the overwhelming evidence of violence, offer a glimpse into the complex web of personal interactions that transpired within the broader context of occupation and conflict. For example, @amado4601 recounted the unlikely friendship between a Japanese soldier and a Filipino family: ‘Due to my grandfather’s kindness, the Japanese commander assured him of his family’s safety. As the Japanese retreated, the commander left his samurai sword with my uncle, whom he was very fond of, and promised to return after the war’. Similarly, @juan22384 presented a dichotomy of experiences within the same family: while one grandfather suffered a violent assault at the hands of Japanese soldiers, another was forewarned by a Japanese soldier about impending bombings in Manila and was provided safe passage to the countryside. Another commenter, @benigno1555, shares a poignant memory of a Japanese woman who, amidst the prevailing hostility, gifted a doll to the commenter’s grandmother: ‘My grandmother used to say, not all Japanese soldiers were bad.’ These contestations on the civilian-occupier relationship, while certainly outliers compared to the innumerable accounts of civilian suffering, could also represent the changing perceptions about the postwar Filipino–Japanese relationship.
Civilian resistance was also recounted in the data. A comment by @charito0601 told the story of a grandmother who, at 15 years old, killed several Japanese soldiers: ‘I owe my freedom to her and the other brave Filipinos and American soldiers who fought for us during the war.’ Another comment by @hernan2384 shared how their grandmother, separated from her husband, had to give birth in a cave. Further comments within the dataset highlight the supportive roles played by civilians in bolstering the resistance effort, whether through providing information and sustenance to guerrilla fighters or devising strategies to elude Japanese surveillance and control. These narratives underscore the collective endeavour of the Filipino population to contribute to the resistance in whatever capacity possible, emphasising a shared commitment to liberation and the restoration of sovereignty.
The shared narratives of war veterans and civilians, as reflected in the dataset, present a compelling story of survival, resilience, trauma and loss woven through the experiences of those who lived through the Japanese occupation in the Philippines. While specific to the historical context of the war, these accounts resonate with universal themes of human endurance in the face of adversity, the impact of trauma across generations, and the complex process of memory and remembrance.
For war veterans, the notion of survival is deeply intertwined with the physical and psychological trials endured during combat, captivity and imprisonment, mainly through the sharing of the events in the Falls of Bataan and Corregidor and the Bataan Death March. These stories represent the shared personal testimonies of the human will to persevere despite overwhelming hardship and the imminent threat of death. The brutality of the Japanese forces, coupled with the stark conditions of imprisonment, forced soldiers to engage in a relentless battle for survival, both literally and metaphorically. In this context, the narrative of fighting for one’s life extends beyond the immediate physical struggle to encompass a broader existential struggle against dehumanisation, which is apparent in the data.
Conversely, civilians recount survival through a lens of evasion, resilience and resourcefulness, highlighting the myriad ways individuals and communities sought to escape the occupiers, protect their families and maintain a semblance of normalcy amidst the turmoil. These narratives of hiding, fleeing, and subsisting under dire conditions illustrate a collective determination to withstand the occupation and preserve what remained of their way of life.
Another common theme in the shared postmemory is the enduring impact of trauma and loss experienced by soldiers and civilians alike. The trauma inflicted by the war did not cease with the end of hostilities; instead, it persisted, leaving indelible marks on the individuals directly affected and echoing through their families for generations. The transmission of these traumatic experiences, or the lack thereof, underscores the complex dynamics of memory and silence within families. Numerous commenters shared that, while they were sure their grandparents were alive during the wars, the limited memories they shared, if they did share at all, are a cause for wonder. However, survivors decide which former identities to maintain or aspects of their past experiences to alter, share or keep according to specific motivations.Footnote 53
Damage to infrastructure and postwar reconstruction
The dataset reveals a profound loss over the destruction of Manila’s architectural and cultural heritage. We attribute this to the fact that the majority of the videos in our sample reproduce or remix war footage that mostly feature the destruction of Manila’s infrastructure. The battle left in its wake a landscape of ruins where once stood the grandeur of Spanish and U.S. colonial architecture, and for the audience who have lived or visited Manila, this has spurred communal mourning for the city’s lost structures. This collective yearning for a past now inaccessible lends credence to Jenny Gregory’s observation that social media platforms significantly bolster awareness of and a shared affinity for history, amplified by a communal sense of loss.Footnote 54 For instance, commenter @corazon0461 reflected on the long-lasting effects of the battle, mourning the historical buildings that have been ‘lost in the echoes of history’. In another well-liked comment, @bernard1077 mourned how Manila was ‘razed to the ground’ and today, what used to be the ‘Paris of the East… never recovered’. Replies to this comment affirmed this sentiment, like @lolita107715, who reminisced about Manila’s (or the Philippines’) moniker, the ‘Pearl of the Orient’, and bemoaned the severe reduction of its grandeur in the war’s aftermath, yet acknowledging fleeting glimpses of its former glory during a later visit.
Furthermore, postmemory-sharing emerged strongly in these discussions, with memories of Manila’s past beauty being relayed in the comments from the perspective of stories told by grandparents. Commenter @maria0223 shared a grandmother’s fond recollections of Manila’s ‘good old times’, highlighting the war’s impact as scars that remain visible today. Such commentary underscores not only the direct consequences of the conflict but also its profound implications for national identity and the collective memory of the Filipino people. Replying to a comment about how war is to blame for the destruction of Manila, @lito04501 explained that it was the government and the people who should be blamed for what could have been ‘a cornerstone of Filipino national identity’ through pre-war Manila’s beauty, which has been ‘obliterated’.
The loss of Manila’s architectural and cultural heritage in the battle’s aftermath connects with discussions on the quest for accountability. Such a discourse is characterised by a dual blame narrative directed at the Japanese and U.S. forces. The Japanese are criticised for burning down the city in defence of their occupation. At the same time, the U.S. military’s carpet bombing, aimed at dislodging Japanese positions, was also implicated in the widespread destruction. In a reply to a comment about how Manila was ‘liberated’ by the United States war, @angela6005 argued that this came at the cost of Manila’s infrastructure damage and said: ‘Manila was not saved… it was pounded by bombs’. We find similar arguments in the comments about the United States’ role in the damage of Manila, as seen in this exchange from the video ‘Asian Stalingrad – The Battle of Manila 1945’:
@thomas131: As a Filipino, I am offended to see comments like ‘the Americans destroyed Manila’ because, without them, there would be no Philippines. It was necessary to sacrifice to save our country.
@roxanne13150: @thomas131 As a Filipino, I am proud to see comments like that because it means they know it was not the Japanese who destroyed Manila.
@ernesto13157: I agree that Americans destroyed Manila during the war, but false statements about them are unhelpful. They are neither purely good nor bad. Instead of blaming, we should focus on rebuilding.
This interaction underscores the multifaceted nature of wartime accountability, where different actors are responsible for the tragic reshaping of Manila’s landscape. It reflects a broader contemplation on the impacts of military strategies on urban and cultural heritage, suggesting a need for a more comprehensive understanding of wartime actions and their long-term effects on civilian populations and cultural landmarks.
The discourse on the aftermath of Manila’s destruction intersects with reflections on the postwar Philippine government’s reconstruction efforts, which many view as ineffective in preserving the city’s architectural heritage and cultural identity. This dialogue unveils a collective yearning for a Manila that once was, juxtaposed against the reality of its modern state — a reality marked by rapid urbanisation and the loss of historic character. For example, @ryan0987 voiced frustration over the radical transformations of Manila’s architecture, saying: ‘I personally hope if possible that one day Manila can rebuilt some pre-1945 buildings and restore ugly areas… I can respect a more modern approach as well.’ Another commenter, @emman0461, lamented the replacement of Manila’s historic charm with what is perceived as uninspired, modern constructions: ‘All cities have a soul and Manila’s soul was lost and never recovered, replaced by an urbanite hell filled with the excess of rapid and poorly planned urbanisation.’
These expressions of discontent do more than merely critique architectural changes; they reveal a profound emotional connection to the city’s physical spaces, equating the loss of architectural identity with a loss of cultural essence. Such sentiments foster ‘emotional communities’ where the shared concern for heritage preservation strengthens socio-cultural bonds and underscores the importance of collective memory in urban identity.Footnote 55
The discourse also interrogates the need for accountability, as the comments directed sharp criticism at postwar leadership and subsequent generations for their role in the city’s architectural decline. In their comment, @ryan0987, for example, found it fitting to blame political leaders during the postwar years, as they could have adopted a better approach, ‘the politicians, for some reason, hate giving back to their country and people… I know colonisation was dark, but if there were two good things the Spanish gifted us, it was Christianity and those buildings. Manila deserves to be much better than it is today, and if we rebuilt what we once had, it could’ve helped the urban planning and situation in the country.’ The failure to reconstruct Manila’s historic buildings is seen not just as a loss of physical structures but as a missed opportunity to enhance urban planning and enrich the nation’s cultural landscape. Amidst these critiques, a call emerges for a more thoughtful approach to urban development that harmonises modernisation with the imperative to preserve historical landmarks. Potential points of unity could be leveraged through social movements that call for heritage-sensitive urban renewal in Manila.
Lastly, the discourse on Manila’s destruction during the battle extends into a profound contemplation of the liberation’s actual cost, especially concerning Filipino lives and the city’s cultural heritage. A comment by @samantha2344 likened Manila’s experience to that of ‘a ragdoll fought over by two big bullies’ and pointed out the paradox of being ‘saved’ by U.S. forces at the price of Manila’s architectural beauty, while @ireneo2018 commented a sarcastic ‘thanks’ to Japan and the United States for ‘destroying Manila, the city where I was born’. As these comments point to the complex moral and ethical dilemmas posed by wartime liberations, these reflections contribute to a broader conversation about the enduring impact of such events on national memory and identity. As exclaimed by @salvador13091, the battle contributed to the mediocrity of the Philippines, as ‘our cities could have had better urban planning and our history better preserved, which could have helped Filipino identity’. The commenter claimed that Manila never fully recovered from its destruction, unlike Warsaw. Such claims reveal the importance of honouring Manila’s past, suggesting a path that balances remembrance with progress.
The comprehensive discussion on the comments about the devastation of Manila’s infrastructure resonates with a communal nostalgia for the city’s lost glory. The nostalgia, as expressed in our dataset, went beyond pining for the past, as commenters engaged in an active dialogue about the past and the present.Footnote 56 The conversation shifts ‘between past and present, continuity and discontinuity’ and problematises the ‘force of separation’.Footnote 57 Beyond simple grief over lost architectural and cultural landmarks, commenters vigorously debate responsibility through a critical evaluation of postwar reconstruction efforts and an ethical deliberation on the costs associated with liberation. Such discourse is emblematic of a collective endeavour to comprehend and internalise the ramifications of this historical event on the Filipino national consciousness, collective memory and socio-political dynamics. The resulting vernacular discourses underscore the pivotal role played by social media platforms, notably YouTube, in fostering a shared space for collective memory and heritage appreciation. Through these platforms, the variety of personal and communal narratives surrounding Manila’s destruction and subsequent recovery efforts is woven into a larger story of resilience, identity and change. Engaging with Manila’s historical narrative through these online discussions illuminates the perceived importance of preserving historical memory, which is not merely an exercise in nostalgia or an attempt to idealise what has been irretrievably lost but a crucial endeavour to ensure that the lessons gleaned from such profound losses drive more thoughtful, inclusive approaches to urban development. By keeping the memory of Manila’s past alive, these discussions contribute to a collective understanding that can guide the city’s trajectory towards a future honouring its heritage while embracing the possibilities of progress and renewal.
Justice, accountability, and Japan/U.S. culpability
The interplay between discourses on postmemory sharing and the implications of infrastructural damage intersects with a broad thematic cluster, which primarily coalesces around notions of justice and accountability. We find that the discussion related to these issues between Japan and the United States vary in both degree and scale. Attitudes towards Japan are more closely related to discussions on war crimes and the acknowledgement of atrocities inflicted on Filipinos, while attitudes towards the United States primarily revolved around the physical destruction of Manila.
Perceptions about Japan are mainly centred on the atrocities they committed during the battle and the war in general. For example, a comment by @arturo005 claims that: ‘The Japanese have committed the most war crimes in our world’s history. The most disgusting part is that they still claim that they never did these.’ Discussions about Japan’s wartime actions still enrage audiences, such as @angelica0476, who expressed, ‘Since this is my parents’ country, I could not help but feel my blood boil listening to the actions committed by the Japanese. I do not understand the complete loss of human decency. Perhaps being a collectivist society during war enables this sort of behaviour.’ The discussions on Japanese war atrocities also led to comparisons of war crimes, usually with Nazi Germany, with several users asserting that the Japanese seem to be more brutal than their German counterparts.
For users who share specific experiences related to the battle, we find a similar expression of hatred, as exemplified by @steven3509’s comment: ‘I know one of my aunts had kept a grudge against the Japanese, even up until her recent death.’ These feelings of frustration illustrate the continued transmission of memory from survivors to younger generations, influencing identity and perceptions about the war in general and the culpability of the Japanese. Many comments also highlight what they perceive as Japan’s unrepentant stance during the postwar years and demand greater accountability. Claims abound regarding the lack of attention to Japan’s wartime actions in Japanese general education and the efforts of the Japanese government to deny or forget part of their past actively. While numerous comments note that Japanese citizens cannot be held responsible for the actions of their leaders, Japan’s perceived inability to acknowledge its atrocities lies at the heart of the negative sentiment expressed against Japan in our commentary dataset.
On the other hand, comments on U.S. responsibility focus on their role in the destruction of Manila. The comments criticise the United States’ military actions that resulted in massive casualties and damage to architectural and cultural heritage. These comments often highlight the devastating impact of the battle on civilian life and infrastructure, questioning the moral and ethical considerations behind military strategies. Numerous comments decry the destruction of Manila, pointing to the United States as the culprit. An example of this is a comment by @benji010854, who argued against a fellow user who thanked the United States for the liberation of the Philippines by saying, ‘Do not thank them. They destroyed Manila. Manila used to look so beautiful. The rebuilding was a complete disgrace.’ Many also expressed their shock at the extent of the damage and questioned whether the scale of destruction was necessary for the victory of the United States. Compared to the Japanese call for accountability, the comments associated with U.S. responsibility relate more to the undue destruction and loss of architectural and cultural heritage. Moreover, the comments also recognise the subsequent lack of postwar reconstruction support from the U.S., highlighting a critical engagement with U.S. wartime and postwar policies.
However, an intriguing aspect of discussions on U.S. responsibility is how they dredge up the deeper historical wounds inflicted by the United States on the Philippines, dating back to the Philippine–American War.Footnote 58 These reflections provide a critical lens through which the devastation of Manila is not viewed in isolation but as part of a longer trajectory of contested interactions between the two nations. Critiques of the U.S. military actions in Manila, which resulted in massive casualties and extensive damage to architectural and cultural heritage, are deepened by an awareness of earlier conflicts. The extensive damage is interpreted through recurrent themes of domination and disregard for Filipino sovereignty and well-being. A comment by @chan4004309, for instance, expresses discontent over the portrayal of the United States as liberators when they ‘never answered for their atrocities during the Philippine–American War’. Numerous comments also highlight that the Philippines was merely collateral damage, as the conflict was primarily between Japan and the United States, and it was the U.S. presence in the Philippines that resulted in Filipinos being at the receiving end of Japanese brutality. Comments such as this suggest that discourses of U.S. responsibility related to the Battle of Manila are enriched by this historical context, offering a critical engagement with the immediate postwar policies and the broader U.S. imperial agenda in the Philippines. The discussion extends beyond the wartime atrocities to include a critique of the structural inequalities and long-lasting impacts of U.S. colonial rule, including the lack of meaningful postwar reconstruction support.
Our analysis uncovers an intriguing aspect of the discourse on justice and accountability: a concurrent emphasis on transcending collective blame. Unlike assertions that support a uniform narrative of historical culpability, these perspectives advocate for a more refined understanding that encourages forgiveness without forgetting the grave offences committed by Japan and the widespread devastation wrought by the United States. Such advocacies for a collective resolve highlight the importance of learning from traumatic historical episodes to prevent their recurrence, positing memory as a means to honour the past and safeguard against the repetition of past atrocities.
We find a noticeable trend within these discussions that questions the usefulness of harbouring resentment towards Japan, suggesting that subsequent generations and the geopolitical landscape have transformed, potentially reflecting the evolution of Japan’s national identity influenced by the interplay of various postwar dynamics.Footnote 59 Amidst reminders of the past’s dark episodes, numerous users call for forgiveness and the importance of moving forward, especially given the now amicable relationships among the Philippines, Japan and the United States. In an impassioned argument with another user about U.S. atrocities in the Philippines, @juanmiguel1819238 commented: ‘While both [Philippine–American War and the Pacific War] are similar in nature, we should move on given our dependence on the U.S., which has a significant impact on the modern world. The same applies to Japan. The generation of Americans and Japanese today is different from the time they fought wars. However, I often wonder why so many people move on and forget. We can move forward and forgive without forgetting what happened.’ This focus on forgiveness, distinguishing between the actions of past governments and the current populace, embodies a progressive stance, championing reconciliation while firmly holding onto the lessons of history.
Memories of the Battle of Manila: Present but obscured
The vernacular discourses on war memories in the YouTube comments we analysed provide insights into the transmission of war memories specific to the Battle of Manila in a transnational digital space. The concept of postmemory emerges as a central theme, characterising the relationship of subsequent generations to the trauma experienced by their predecessors. This mediated relationship, fuelled by imaginative investment and creation, is vividly illustrated through narratives shared by descendants of war veterans and civilian victims. These digital narratives connect past and present generations and underscore the evolving nature of memory transmission facilitated by the advent of digital media platforms.
The detailed postmemory narratives shared in our commentary dataset, particularly those related to the experiences of soldiers and civilians during the Battle of Manila, relate to the complexities of memory, heroism and identity. They highlight how memory shapes national consciousness and personal identity, especially in contexts marked by collective experiences of suffering and resilience. The brutality and violence recounted, primarily by Filipino contributors, extend the scope of wartime experiences to encompass the pervasive impact of conflict on civilian life, challenging simplistic categorisations of good and evil and highlighting moments of empathy and connection amidst widespread atrocities. It is concerning, however, that the conversation on violence does not necessarily lead to an interrogation of justice that directly problematises the lack of attention on and memorialisation of the Battle of Manila. Narratives highlighting Japanese wartime atrocities are often framed within discussions that celebrate heroism and sacrifice, suggesting a normalisation of wartime violence to the extent that a justice deficit is not readily acknowledged.
The normalisation of violence that pervades the postmemory discussions in our dataset could be interpreted through the lens of what Johann Galtung termed ‘cultural violence’.Footnote 60 This concept identifies elements of culture that can be used to justify or legitimise direct or structural violence. This form of violence is particularly insidious, as it is deeply ingrained within the societal fabric, manifesting through symbols, narratives, and underlying assumptions that portray systemic inequalities and injustices inherent in structural violence as natural, inevitable or justified. Such a pervasive presence makes it challenging to discern and address, effectively normalising and perpetuating inequalities under the guise of cultural norms or historical inevitabilities, obscuring the urgent need for systemic change and justice. Thus, cultural violence serves the maintenance of the status quo, normalising direct or structural violence or rendering it invisible. Contemporary understandings of war are formed not only through intergenerational memory transmission but also through other modes that often take precedence, such as history education. For Angela Bermudez, history education plays a role in representing violence as intrinsic to human history, and while references to violence are abundant, violence is rarely discussed as the object of analysis.Footnote 61 War pasts are also mediatised and commodified as popular and performative representations of the past, disseminated through films, television, comic books and games, and cater to a transnational audience’s commercial and entertainment demands. Roger Stahl refers to this phenomenon as ‘militainment’, where audiences are invited to view war as a spectacle through various media, from newscasts, movies, television to video games.Footnote 62 The Second World War is arguably the most popularly represented conflict in all media forms, often emphasising narratives of heroism and sacrifice while sidelining critical discussions on justice and ethics.
The extensive damage to Manila’s infrastructure during wartime is a predominant theme in our dataset. This dialogue is marked by strong regret for the destruction of the city’s historical architecture, which is blamed mainly on the oversight of the postwar Philippine government. Moreover, there is a nuanced debate concerning who should bear the blame for this destruction. The discourse identifies the Japanese forces for initiating the conflict while also pointing to the United States for its decision to conduct extensive bombing of Manila in an attempt to eliminate enemy forces. Regardless of where the blame ultimately lies, Manila’s struggle to fully recover or to restore its historical landmarks to their previous state highlights a collective sense of cultural loss, especially when the vernacular discourses on rehabilitation point to the successful recovery of Warsaw and Hiroshima, two comparably destroyed cities of the Second World War.
The sense of loss over heritage resonates deeply within the public discourse, evident in the YouTube commentary, particularly among Filipinos, who feel a significant disconnect between the Manila of today and the Manila that was lost to the war. This perceived discontinuity, or ‘broken connection’, reflects an estrangement from deeper themes of death, continuity and the cycle of life.Footnote 63 Interestingly, in our dataset, this notion of death is more commonly linked to the loss of heritage rather than to the actual loss of lives, likely due to the digital content on the Battle of Manila focusing more on the destruction of buildings than on civilian casualties. The devastation of Manila thus stands as a symbol of a lost connection to the city’s past, and the public’s frustration over the failure to reconstruct its lost heritage after the war signifies a collective desire for reconnection and the restoration of cultural identity that could extend to action.
The extent that the Battle of Manila has not become a source of resentment for Filipinos against Japan or the United States, as revealed in our analysis, puts into perspective what Satoshi Nakano saw as forgiveness resulting from a lengthy reconciliation process that began under the Philippine postwar governments.Footnote 64 There is evidence of this reconciliation gleaned through international and intergenerational conversations in digital spaces. However, the resilience of this reconciliation between Japan and the Philippines does not stem from a forgetting of past atrocities, as the shadow of wartime postmemory looms large. Instead, it is the public’s inability to frame civilian casualties within a justice paradigm and the pervasive normalisation of violence narratives related to the Battle of Manila that maintain war memories as both omnipresent and yet obscured.
The discourse on justice and accountability within our dataset transcends the specific context of the Battle of Manila, engaging with broader themes pertinent to the entirety of the war. These themes encompass the complexity of attributing responsibility, the imperative of acknowledging atrocities, the influence of national narratives on collective memory, and the tension between forgiveness and accountability. While these discussions often do not directly reference the Battle of Manila, they underscore the utility of digital platforms in fostering dialogues that, albeit indirectly, challenge us to reconsider the concepts of justice and accountability within the broader framework of the war. Furthermore, the conversation extends beyond the confines of the Pacific War and Japan’s occupation of the Philippines, touching upon contentious historical episodes among the three nations involved, such as the Philippine–American War, debates surrounding Philippine independence and the evolving geopolitical dynamics in the postwar period. In this way, the Battle of Manila serves as a conduit for these expansive discussions, illustrating the multidirectional nature of memory, particularly within the digital realm.Footnote 65 This phenomenon underscores the capacity of historical events to function as focal points for broader reflections on justice, memory and the complexities of historical narratives.
Conclusion
Our exploration into digital postmemory and vernacular discourses on the Battle of Manila, as reflected in user commentary on YouTube, illustrates the relationship between collective memory, transnational narratives and the personal act of remembering. This digital engagement bridges generations and transcends geographical boundaries, offering a unique perspective through which the contentions of war are illuminated and contested. The prevalence of postmemory sharing emphasises that war memories are indeed passed down and remain alive among families, while the expressions of loss over the destruction of infrastructure indicate that the war’s impact on urban sites creates an emotional connection with the public.
However, the lack of discussions surrounding justice and accountability within these dialogues underscores a more troubling narrative: the marginalisation of the Battle of Manila in the broader discourse on the Pacific War and the silence regarding civilian casualties, while the state emphasises military losses. This omission reflects a collective amnesia about the human cost of war and raises critical questions about how societies remember, honour and learn from their past. We see this amnesia as potentially connected to the way the war has been memorialised by the state through commemorative sites and activities as well as the prevailing treatment of the war in historical education.
Future research could extend this framework comparatively across Southeast Asia, where war memory related to the Pacific War varies considerably in adoption, intensity and focus depending on national contexts and commemorative traditions. The ways states and publics remember the war differ markedly across former occupied territories, shaped by distinct postcolonial trajectories and nation-building imperatives.Footnote 66 Examining whether the patterns we identify here, particularly the marginalisation of civilian suffering and the normalisation of violence in vernacular digital discourses, hold across other Southeast Asian cases would enrich our understanding of how the Pacific War circulates as transnational memory in the digital age.
Ultimately, we highlight that digital platforms, despite their democratising potential in memory transmission, may also propagate and perpetuate state narratives. Thus, we note that there is ample space for activist and interest groups to promote discussions that problematise the war’s legacies in a way that focuses on civilian lives lost, so that the military-centric narrative is balanced with a much-needed remembrance of the numerous lives unwillingly given up for the war. This way, the potential of digital spaces to foster a more inclusive and multifaceted dialogue on war memories could be fully realised. YouTube, in particular, serves not just as a repository of narratives but as a vibrant forum for engagement, where the past is actively negotiated, reimagined and challenged.
