Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:37:46.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intellectuals and Fascism in Early Shōwa Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Miles Fletcher
Get access

Abstract

Using the concept of fascism for analyzing political developments in early Shōwa Japan has become a controversial topic, and a lively debate about a general definition of fascism has raged among scholars of modern European history. This article presents a new interpretation of Japanese fascism and a modification of Ernst Nolte's definition of fascism as anti-modernism. The author argues that while Japan was not fascist during the 1930s, the original New Order Movement, which was planned by the Shōwa Research Association and promoted by Premier Konoe Fumimaro in 1940, did constitute a fascist movement. It was modeled on policies of European fascism and, fitting Nolte's definition, aimed at creating an anti-modern society. In addition, the New Order Movement revealed a polarity in its basic goals—the advocacy of anti-modernism and the simultaneous quest for a strong military and industrial state—that is central to fascist movements. The author also rejects the previously held image of Japanese intellectuals as passive resisters against the rise of authoritarianism in Japan by emphasizing the leading roles of three prominent writers—Miki Kiyoshi, Ryū Shintarō, and Rōyama Masamichi—in planning the New Order Movement.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , November 1979 , pp. 39 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Masao, Maruyama, Gendai seiji shisō to kōdō (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1973), pp. 29–87Google Scholar; in English, Masao, Maruyama, Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963), pp. 25–83Google Scholar. For other analyses of influential interpretations of Japanese fascism, see Wilson, George M., “A New Look at the Problem of Japanese Fascism,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 10 (1968): 401–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reprinted in Turner, Henry M. A., ed., Reappraisals of Fascism [New York: New Viewpoints, 1975], pp. 199–214Google Scholar); Morley, James W., “Introduction: Choice and Consequences,” in Morley, , ed., Dilemmas of Growth in Prewar Japan (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1972), pp. 10–26Google Scholar; and Berger, Gordon M., “Shōwa shi kenkyū yosetsu: atarashii hikakushiteki hōhō o motomete,” Shisō, no. 624 (June 1976), pp. 198–209Google Scholar.

2 Shigeki, Tōyama, Akira, Fujiwara, and Seiichi, Imai, Shōwa shi, 1st ed. (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1955)Google Scholar. The authors revised the book substantially in a 1959 edition, but continued to analyze developments during the 1930s in terms of the rise of fascism.

3 For example, see Bunzō, Hashikawa, “Nihon fuashizumu no shisōteki tokushitsu,” in Kōza Nihon shi, ed. kenkyūkai, Rekishigaku and kenkyūkai, Nihon shi (Tokyo: Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1971), vol. 7, Nihon teikokushugi no hōkai, pp. 332–34Google Scholar; Yukio, Chō, Shōwa kyōkō: Nihon fuashizumu zenya (Tokyo: Iwanami shinsho, 1973) pp. 181–82 and 196–98Google Scholar; and Tetsuo, Furuya, “Nihon fuashizimu ron,” in Nihon rekishi, Iwanami kōza, vol. 20 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1976), pp. 81–86Google Scholar.

4 Tsutomu, Ōuchi, Fuashizumu e no michi, Nihon no rekishi, vol. 24 (Tokyo: Chūō kōronsha, 1971), pp. 470–87Google Scholar.

5 Hayashi Kentarō, “Japan and Germany in the Interwar Period,” in Morley, Dilemmas of Growth, pp. 461–88.

6 See Mitchell, Richard H., Thought Control in Prewar Japan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1976), pp. 190–91Google Scholar.

7 For example, Maxon, Yale Candee, Control of Japanese Foreign Policy: A Study of Civilian-Military Rivalry, 1930–1945 (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1954)Google Scholar; Storry, Richard, The Double Patriots (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957)Google Scholar; and Butow, Robert J. C., Tojo and the Coming of the War (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

8 One such study is Smethurst, Richard J., A Social Basis for Prewar Japanese Militarism (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1974)Google Scholar. See also Wilson, “The Problem of Japanese Fascism.”

9 Takashi, Itō, “Shōwa seiji shi kenkyū e no ichi shikaku,” Shisō, no. 624 (June 1976), pp. 215–28Google Scholar.

10 Hirozumi, Abe, “Nihon fuashizumu no kenkyū shikaku,” Rekishigaku kenkyū, no. 451 (December 1977), p. 8Google Scholar; and Shirō, Mibu, “Nihon fuashizumu kenkyū ni yosete,” Rekishigaku kenkyū, no. 451 (December 1977), pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

11 Nolte, Ernsr, Three Faces of Fascism, trans. Vennewitz, Leila (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966)Google Scholar.

12 Masao, Maruyama, Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan, trans. Hane, Mikiso (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1974) pp. xxx–xxxiGoogle Scholar.

13 Maruyama, Thought and Behavior, pp. 57–58.

14 kenkyūkai, Shisō no kagaku, ed., Tenkō, 3 vols. (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1967)Google Scholar. Professor Tsurumi presents the concept of tenkō in his introduction to the first volume, “Tenkō no kyōdō kenkyū ni tsuite,” pp. 1–27. A partial English translation of Professor Tsurumi's introduction appears in the Journal of Social and Political Ideas in Japan 2 (1964): 54–58Google Scholar.

15 Michio, Takeyama, Shōwa seishin shi (Tokyo: Shinchōsha, 1956), pp. 81 and 124–26Google Scholar. (A more literal translation of this title would be “A Spiritual History of the Shōwa Period.”)

16 James B. Crowley, “Intellectuals as Visionaries of the New East Asian Order,” in Morley, Dilemmas of Growth, pp. 319–73.

17 Ikuhiko, Hata and Rinjirō, Soda, Nihon senryō hishi (Tokyo: Asahi shimbunsha, 1977) 2: 102–3Google Scholar.

18 Biographical data on Rōyama Masamichi are contained in Matsuzawa Hiroaki, “Minshū shakaishugi no hitobito: Rōyama Masamichi hoka,” Shisō no kagaku kenkyūkai, ed., Tenkō 3: 249–307; and Jinji kōshinroku (Tokyo: Jinji koshinjo, 1966)Google Scholar. A chronology of Ryū's life is in Shintarō, Ryū, Zenshū, 8 vols. (Tokyo: Asahi shimbunsha, 1969), 6: 605–48Google Scholar (cited hereafter as Zenshū). Tōru, Miyagawa, Miki Kiyoshi (Tokyo: Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1970), pp. 157–82Google Scholar presents a compact chronology of the life of Miki Kiyoshi.

19 See, for example, Hiroo, Sassa, Nihon fuashizumu no hatten katei (Tokyo: Asano shoten, 1932), pp. 1–17, 97–113, and 194–95Google Scholar; and idem, Seiji no hinkon (Tokyo: Chikura shobō, 1931), pp. 54–55 and 69–70Google Scholar.

20 Masamichi, Rōyama, Hiroo, Sassa and Katsumaro, Akamatsu, “Fuashizumu hihan,” Keizai ōrai 7 (January 1932): 50–54Google Scholar.

21 Ibid., p. 56.

22 Masamichi, Rōyama, Gendai no shakai shisō (Tokyo: Kōyō shoin, 1934)Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., p. 21.

24 Rocco, Alfredo, “The Political Doctrine of Fascism,” in International Conciliation: Documents for the Year 1926 (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1926), pp. 389–445Google Scholar.

25 See Bikle, George B. Jr., The New Jerusalem: Aspects of Utopianism in the Thought of Kagawa Toyohiko (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press, 1976)Google Scholar; and Wm, Miles Fletcher, III, “Ideologies of Political and Economic Reform and Fascism in Prewar Japan: Shintarō, Ryū, Masamichi, Rōyama, and the Shōwa Research Association” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1975)Google Scholar, ch. 1.

26 Rōyama, Gendai no shakai shisō, p. 71.

27 Masamichi, Rōyama, “Kaku kuni ni okeru keizai kaigi no hikaku seido kenkyū,” Gyōseigaku kenkyū ronbunshū (Tokyo: Keikusa shobō, 1965), pp. 83–89Google Scholar. The article was written in 1934.

28 Rōyama, Gendai no shakai shisō, p. 74.

29 Ibid., pp. 149–54.

30 Masamichi, Rōyama, Seiji dōkō ron (Tokyo: Kōyō shoin, 1933), pp. 357–58Google Scholar.

31 Rōyama, Gendai no shakai shisō, pp. 165 and 183.

32 Ibid., p. 184.

33 Some of Ryū's important early essays were “Ginkō kyōkō no haigo,” Warera 9 (July 1927), pp. 23–34Google Scholar; “Kyōkō ni arawaretagendandai,” Taiyō 34 (January 1928): 39–52Google Scholar; and “Kin yūshutsu saikinshi ‘ron’ to kin yūshutsu saikinshi,” Chūō kōron 46 (November 1931): 83–94Google Scholar. For some of Ryū's critiques of budgetary policies, see ‘Tsūka shinyō tōsei hihan,’ in his Zemhū, 2: 254–56.

34 See “Shogen—shōwa rokunendo taikan,” Nihon rōdō nenkan, 1932 (Tokyo: Dōjinsha shoten, 1932), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; “Shogen—shōwa shichinendo taikan,” Nihon rōdō nenkan, 1933, pp. 6–9 and 10–11; “Shogen—shōwa hachinendo taikan,” Nihon rōdō nenkan, 1934 (Tokyo: Kurita shoten, 1934), pp. 6 and 9–10Google Scholar.

Ryū edited the Nihon rōdō nenkan, and his colleagues at the Ohara Institute have confirmed that Ryū composed the foreword to each volume during this period. See Hyōe, Ōuchi, “Ohara shaken nyūjo no koro,” Kiyoshi, Ebata, ed., Kaisō—Ryū Shintarō (Tokyo: Asahi shimbunsha, 1969), p. 308Google Scholar; and Sadamu, Kimura, “Wasurenokori no ki,” Ryū Shintarō zenshū geppō 8 (June 1969): 4Google Scholar.

35 Shintarō, Ryū, “‘Kokusai’ no taijo to ‘kokusai’ no jojō,” Ekonomisuto 5 (February 1935): 11–12Google Scholar.

36 Ibid., p. 11.

37 “Kokubō no hongi to sono kyōka teishō,” quoted in Taiheiyō sensō shi (Tokyo: Aoki shoten, 1972), vol. 2Google Scholar, Nilchū sensō I, ed. Rekishigaku kenkyūkai, pp. 154–55.

38 Ryū, “‘Kokusai’no taijō,” p. 12.

39 Ibid., p. 13.

40 See Kiyoshi, Miki, “Fuan no shisō to sono chōkoku” (1933)Google Scholar, in Kiyoshi, Miki, Chosakushū (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1948), 13: 133–57Google Scholar, especially p. 143 (cited hereafter as Chosakushū).

41 Kiyoshi, Miki, “Nihonteki seikaku to fuashizumu” (1936), in Chosakushū, 12: 129 and 135Google Scholar.

42 For Miki's reaction to Martin Heidegger's joining the Nazi Party, see Miyagawa Tōru, Miki Kiyoshi, pp. 97–98. For Miki's evaluation of the Minobe Affair, see Kiyoshi, Miki, “Jiyūshugi igo” (1935), in Chosakushū, 12: 68–75Google Scholar.

43 Miki, “Fuashizumu,” pp. 122–23.

44 Kiyoshi, Miki, “Chishiki kaikyū to dentō no mondai” (1937), Chosakushū, 12: 203–9Google Scholar.

45 Miki, “Fuashizumu,” pp. 132 and 136.

46 Miki, “Chishiki kaikyū,” pp. 214–15.

47 A general account of the Shōwa Research Association appears in dōjinkai, Shōwa, ed., Shōwa kenkyūkai (Tokyo: Keizai ōraisha, 1968)Google Scholar. For a description of the founding of the Association by Gotō, see pp. 6–8.

48 Cited in Crowley, James B., “A New Deal for Japan and Asia,” Crowley, , ed., Modern East Asia: Essays in Interpretation (N. Y.: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1970); p. 252Google Scholar.

49 A description of the activity of the Culture Research Group is presented in “Shōwa 14 nendo Shōwa kenkyūkai taikō fu Shōwa 13 nendo jigyō hōkoku,” Shōwa kenkyūkai kankei shiryō (hereafter cited as SKKS), item 229, pp. 65–66. See also Ikutarō, Shimizu, “Miki Kiyoshi to Shōwa kenkyūkai,” Rekishi to jimbutsu, no. 32 (April 1974), pp. 57–65Google Scholar for a more personal account.

50 kenkyūkai, Shōwa, ed., Shin Nihon no shisō genri (Tokyo: n. p., 1939), p. 11Google Scholar. This pamphlet also appears in vol. 17 of Miki Kiyoshi zenshū (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1968)Google Scholar, but it did not appear in the Chosakushū published in 1948.

51 Shin Nihon no shisō genri, p. 13.

52 Ibid., p. 19.

53 Ibid., p. 17.

54 kenkyūkai, Shōwa, ed., Shin Nihon no shisō genri, zokuhen–kyōdōshugi no tetsugakuteki kiso (1939), in Miki Kiyoshi zenshū, 17: 577Google Scholar.

55 Shōwa kenkyūkai, Shin Nihon no shisō genri, pp. 12–13.

56 Shōwa kenkyūkai, Shin Nihon no shisō genri zokuhen, pp. 574–75.

57 See Shimizu, “Miki Kiyoshi,” pp. 60–64.

58 Shūichi, Baba, “Fuashizumu to han fuashizumu—1930 nendai Nihon chishikijin no bawai,” Rekishigaku kenkyū, no. 453 (February 1978), pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

59 See Havens, Thomas R. H., Farm and Nation in Modern Japan: Agrarian Nationalism, 1870–1940 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1974), pp. 69–70 and 236–37Google Scholar.

60 Shōwa kenkyūkai, Shin Nihon no shisō genri, pp. 7–10.

61 See Toennies, Ferdinand, Community and Society, trans, and ed. Loomis, Charles P. (East Lansing: Michigan State Univ. Press, 1957), pp. 225–27Google Scholar; and Loomis's introduction, pp. 3–4.

62 Shōwa kenkyōkai, Shin Nihon no shisō genri zokuhen, p. 557.

63 See Carroll, Bernice A., Design for Total War: Arms and Economics in the Third Reich (The Hague: Mouton, 1968)Google Scholar; and Milward, Alan S., The German Economy at War (London: Athlone Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

64 Ermath, Fritz, The New Germany: National Socialist Government in Theory and Practice (Washington, D.C.: Digest Press, American University Graduate School, 1936), p. 84Google Scholar. See also Carroll, Design for Total War, p. 82.

65 For a description of these new industrial organizations see Ermath, The New Germany, pp. 124–26.

66 These Nazi economic policies are described in Nathan, Otto, The Nazi Economic System: Germany's Mobilization for War (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1944), pp. 71–73, 119–23, 129–30, and 222–27Google Scholar.

67 Germany's industrial production rose fiftysix percent between June 1933 and June 1936; employment increased thirty-six percent; and wholesale prices climbed twelve percent. Knauerhase, Ramon, An Introduction to National Socialism (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972), p. 112Google Scholar.

68 Shintarō, Ryū, Junsenji tōsei keizai (1937), in Zenshū, 2: 283 and 336–37Google Scholar.

69 Ibid., p. 281.

70 Ibid., pp. 323–25 and 498–99.

71 Shōwa kenkyūkai jimukyoku, “Keizai saihensei no kihon hōkō—saimoku kenkyū no puran sakusei no tame no sankō iken,” 27 September 1939, SKKS, item 181.

72 Shōwa dōjinkai, Shōwa kenkyūkai, pp. 125— 26.

73 Shintarō, Ryū, Nihon keizai no saihensei (Tokyo: Chūō kōronsha, 1940), pp. 158–66Google Scholar.

74 Ibid., pp. 126–29 and 146–47.

75 Ibid., p. 153.

76 Ibid., p. 174.

77 Ibid., p. 153.

78 Masamichi, Rōyama, Gendai shakai shisō kozā (Tokyo: Kōyō shoin, 1937), p. 229Google Scholar.

79 Ibid., p. 252.

80 Ibid., pp. 60–61.

81 Ibid., pp. 281–86.

82 Ibid., pp. 159–62.

83 Ibid., pp. 198 and 202–5.

84 See Shina jihen taisaku iinkai, “Shina jihen taisaku sōan, kankō senshūryo zengo ni okeru,” SKKS, item 56.

85 Masamichi, Rōyama, “Kokumin kyōdōtai no keisei,” Kaizō 21 (May 1939): 24Google Scholar.

86 Ibid., p. 25.

87 Ibid., pp. 25–27.

88 Masamichi, Rōyama, Sekai no henkyoku to Nihon no sekai seisaku (Tokyo: Genmatsudō shoten, 1938), pp. 307–9Google Scholar.

89 Masamichi, Rōyama, “Tōa kyōdōtai no riron” (1939), in Tōa to sekai (Tokyo: Kaizōsha, 1941), pp. 23–40Google Scholar.

90 Rōyama, “Kyōdōtai no keisei,” p. 7.

91 jimukyoku, Shōwa kenkyūkai, Nihon keizai saihensei shian (Tokyo: Sakano insatsujo, 1940)Google Scholar. Professors Nakamura Takafusa and Hara Akira have estimated that the first copy of this draft was composed in August 1939. See Nakamura, and Hara, , “Keizai shintaisei,” in gakkai, Nihon seiji, ed., Konoe shintaisei no kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1972), pp. 105–6Google Scholar, n. 3. The exact authorship of this draft is uncertain.

92 jimukyoku, Shōwa kenkyūkai, “Seiji kikō kaishin taikō” (1940), in Itō Takashi and Imai Seiichi, Kokka sōdōin, 2Google Scholar, Gendai shi shiryō, vol. 44 (Tokyo: Misuzu shobō, 1974), p. 162Google Scholar. Yabe claims to have written this report in kankōkai, Yabe Teiji nikki, Yabe Teiji nikki (Tokyo: Yomiuri shimbunsha, 1974), p. 339Google Scholar.

93 Shōwa kenkyūkai jimukyoku, “Seiji kikō,” pp. 163–66.

94 Ibid., pp. 163–64.

95 Hanyū Shinshichi, “Kokumin undō kenkyūkai no koro,” in Ebata, Kaisō—Ryū Shintarō, p. 388; and Kenji, Tomita, Haisen Nihon no naigawa—Konoe kō no omoide (Tokyo: Kokon shoin, 1962), pp. 46–47Google Scholar.

96 Yabe Teiji nikki, pp. 314–15.

97 Ibid, pp. 328–29.

98 kenkyūkai, Rekishigaku, ed., Nitchū sensō II, 1937–1940 Taiheiyō sensō shi (Tokyo: Aoki shoten, 1973). pp. 317–18Google Scholar.

99 The proposal of the secretariat is reprinted in kankōkai, Yokusankai kokumin undōshi, ed., Yokusan undō shi (Tokyo: Yokusankai kokumin undō shi kankōkai, 1954), pp. 101–5 (cited hereafter as Yokusan undō shi)Google Scholar.

100 For a sample of the criticism of the new political order as originally proposed in the Preparation Committee, ibid., pp. 109–10.

101 Cited in Tōyama, et al. , Shōwa shi (1959), p. 183Google Scholar.

102 Berger, Gordon M., Parties out of Power in Japan, 1931–1941 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1976), pp. 321–24Google Scholar.

103 Tōyama et al., Shōwa shi, p. 185; and Berger, Parties out of Power, pp. 341–42.

104 Berger, Gordon M., “Changing Historical Perspectives on Early Shōwa Politics: ‘The Second Approach,’” JAS 34 (February 1975): 480–81Google Scholar.

105 A copy of the Cabinet Planning Board draft of 28 September 1940, “Keizai shintaisei setsuritsu yōkō,” is reprinted in Nakamura and Hara, “Keizai shintaisei,” pp. 121–26. For a brief analysis of the influence of members of Ryū's committee on these plans, see Fletcher, “Ideologies of Political and Economic Reform,” pp. 297–301.

106 The petition of the Japan Economic League is printed in Yōji, Minobe, “Keizai shintaisei kanken,” Nihon hyōron 16 (March 1941): 12–15Google Scholar.

107 Nakamura and Hara, “Keizai shintaisei,” p. 102. A copy of this agreement is in Nakamura Takafusa and Hara Akira, eds., Kokka sōdōin, 1, Gendai shi shiryō, vol. 43 (Tokyo: Misuzu shobō, 1970), pp. 169–71Google Scholar.

108 Maruyama Masao, Thought and Behavior, pp. 72–73. See also Tōyama et al., Shōwa shi, p. 182.

109 See Takeyama, Shōwa seishin shi, pp. 128–34.

110 Turner, Henry A. Jr., “Fascism and Modernization,” World Politics 24 (July 1972): 547–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 For a direct reply to Turner's article, see Gregor, A. James, “Fascism and Modernization: Some Addenda,” World Politics 26 (April 1974): 370–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also idem, “The Ideology of Fascism,” in Weinberg, Gerhard S., ed., Transformation of a Continent (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1974), pp. 253–89Google Scholar, especially p. 288; idem, The Fascist Persuasion in Radical Politics (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1974), pp. 181–82Google Scholar.

112 Alan Cassels, “Janus: the Two Faces of Fascism,” in Turner, Reappraisals of Fascism, pp. 69–92.

113 For an analysis of nōhonshugi ideology during the pre-war period, see Havens, Farm and Nation in Japan, chs. 7–11.