The “doctrine of endurance obligation” (the endurance doctrine) states, “all members of the nation are obligated to equally accept and endure some loss as a result of war. Whether you lost life, suffered bodily injury, or lost assets, you ought to endure it in such a state of national emergency and the state has no legal obligation to redress war-related loss.” This doctrine has been cited numerous times in court cases to deny plaintiff’s claim for state compensation for war-related loss. This paper attempts to draws out the logic of this little known doctrine by tracing historical processes through which the doctrine took shape and how it has put in effect in legal cases, by examining primary documents, such as briefs and other documents in related court cases and the minutes of the “committee to discuss compensation for oversea assets,” and secondary documents including newspapers and newsletters of war-victims’ groups. Moreover, by extending the scope of analysis beyond legal cases, it places the doctrine in a larger social and political context of war redress measures and controversy over war responsibility. It will lead us, in the end, to ponder upon theoretical questions of who bears war responsibility in the total war and how much such responsibility ought to be borne by individual national subject and by the state.