Maybe not 100% what you are looking for, but I looked into how first the United States and then Japan handled the crimes concerning the comfort women. Part of that was the question why this matter hasn't been settled yet.

First of all, you have to understand, that the United States were unlike in Germany the only ruling occupational force in Japan - the other allied powers had little to no influence. So it pretty much came down to how thoroughly they wanted to look into the matter of war crimes and how hard they wanted to try and root out nationalism and/or right wing movements.

While there were trials, the whole process didn't run as deep as in Germany. Some authors (for example George Hicks or David Schmidt) state it was because the United States wanted to stabilize Japan as fast as possible, because it was clear that there would be a conflict with the Soviet Union and they wanted to use Japan as a base of operations and maybe an ally in the east. This means there were many people that helped in the war efforts and were nationalistic/right wing, who were not convicted.

But the most influential element was the perceived rise of communism. With the success of the communist revolution in China and the ensuing Korean War the United States wanted Japan to be rearmed in 1953. This resulted not only in the re-institution of former supporters of the war and nationalism in their positions (or higher ones) but also made the more conservative and right wing politicians work against school books that tried to convey a "peaceful and remorseful" Japan (Sorry, I don't really know how to phrase it better).

During the fifties and sixties they succeeded in passing laws that allowed the introduction of a panel organized by the Ministry for Education, that reviewed school books before publishing. It resulted in state-controlled reviews of school books and semi-censored history books that either didn't mention Japanese war atrocities or at least lowered the victims. There were authors who fought back however (for example Ienaga Saburô) and a struggle ensued in the seventies. What matters here is, that if you censor your history books, you make it hard for younger generations to get to know about what happened and therefor the risk of them becoming nationalistic (in case of Japan) rises.

After more Japanese historians had started to look into the Japanese war crimes, the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono made a statement in 1993 in which he acknowledged the use of pressure, coercion and violence by the state in the recruiting process of the comfort women and a year later the parliament ordered the comfort women to be a topic in school books - this led to revisionist politicians to introduce a group that worked to play down the role of atrocities and even went as far as to state the war against China as daitôa sensô which is a name that is used to described the war as a war of liberation and self-defense.

There are some more events in recent times, I know about, but the 20 years rule prohibit me from stating them. I hope that helped at least to some extend, although it might not have been the exact thing you were looking for.

TL;DR: not enough pressure by occupational forces to really take care of nationalistic bureaucrats; Chinese communist revolution & Korean War led to the fear of communism; right wing politicians tried (and for a while succeeded) in censoring history books; reactions from right wing politicians.

Sources:

• Hicks, George: The Comfort Women - Japan's brutal regime of enforced prositution in the second world war.

• Hein, Laura & Selden, Mark (Eds.): Censoring History - citizenship and memory in Japan, Germany, and the United States.

• Schmidt, David: Ianfu - The Comfort Women of the Japanese Imperial Army.

• The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 617.

(The rest of my stuff is in German or Japanese)