publisher colophon

Notes

INTRODUCTION

1. On the global impact of the Russian Revolution in the twentieth century, see Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914–1991 (New York: Vintage, 1996).

2. The first Korean socialist party was formed in Khabarovsk in 1919, and Korean communists dominated the Korean Provisional Government in Shanghai, established in 1920. Communist parties were established in Persia, India, and Turkey in 1920; Palestine in 1922; and Vietnam, Malaya, Siam, Laos, and the Philippines in 1930.

3. To clarify, Korean and Chinese activists obviously struggled against Japanese imperialism, while the Mongol national liberation struggle was directed against Republican China, the heir to the Qing Empire.

4. Quoted from Boris Nicolaevsky, “Russia, Japan, and the Pan-Asiatic Movement to 1925,” Far Eastern Quarterly 8, no. 3 (1949): 285.

5. Tadashi Anno, National Identity and Great-Power Status in Russia and Japan: Non-Western Challengers to the Liberal International Order (New York: Routledge, 2018).

6. Quoted from Allen S. Whiting, Soviet Policies in China, 1917–1924 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 25.

7. Exceptions to this general trend were studies done by historians of Japanese- Russian relations: George Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1970); Joseph Ferguson, Japanese-Russian Relations, 1907–2007 (London: Routledge, 2008); and Peter Berton, Russo-Japanese Relations, 1905–1917: From Enemies to Allies (London: Routledge, 2012; originally published as a PhD dissertation, “The Secret Russo-Japanese Alliance of 1916,” Michigan University, 1956). In Japanese scholarship imperial Russia and the Soviet Union have occupied much more prominent positions. See, for example, Yoshimura Michio, Nihon to Roshia: Nichiro sengo kara Roshia kakumei made (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, 1968); Tomita Takeshi, Senkanki no Nisso kankei: 1917–1937 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2010); and recently Asada Masafumi, Nichiro kindaishi: Sensō to heiwa no hyakunen (Tokyo: Kodansha, 2018). In Russian, see especially Petr Podalko, Iaponiia v sud'bakh rossiian: Ocherki istorii tsarskoi diplomatii i rossiiskoi diaspory v Iaponii (Moscow: Institut vostokovedeniia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2004); and Vasilii Molodiakov, Rossiia i Iaponiia: V poiskakh soglasiia, 1905–1945 (Moscow: AIRO, 2012).

8. Yamakawa Hitoshi, Yamakawa Hitoshi jiden, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Sakisaka Itsurō (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1961), 370.

9. For a recent study of the Japanese Left, see Kurokawa Iori, Teikoku ni kōsuru shakai undō: Daiichiji Nihon Kyōsantō no shisō to undō (Tokyo: Yūshisha, 2014).

10. Akira Iriye’s book, After Imperialism, is an exception in singling out the importance of the Soviet moment in East Asia, but it deals more with international politics. See Akira Iriye, After Imperialism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965). Soviet scholarship on the impact of communism in interwar Japan was overtly ideological, while contemporary Russian scholarship on Japan has not yet addressed this topic, largely due to the present general confusion in Russia about how to approach the Soviet past historically.

11. I did not venture into exploring the relationship between the state and communist organizations in the 1930s; neither did I incorporate the Japanese Marxist debate of the 1930s on Japanese capitalism (Nihon shihonshugi ronsō) put forward by the two major Marxist schools, the Kōza-ha (Lectures Faction) and the Rōnō-ha (Worker-Farmer Faction). For that, see Germaine Hoston, Marxism and the Crisis of Development in Prewar Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986). Neither did I engage extensively with Japanese communist sojourners’ experiences within the Soviet Union, and their often tragic lives during the height of the Stalinist terror. For the latter issue, see Katō Tetsurō, Mosukuwa de shukuseisareta Nihonjin: 30-nendai Kyōsantō to Kunisaki Teidō, Yamamoto Kenzō no higeki (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1994).

12. Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 1–4.

CHAPTER 1. BEFORE 1917

1. For a detailed account of early Russo-Japanese relations, see George A. Lensen, The Russian Push toward Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959); and Lensen, “Early Russo-Japanese Relations,” Far Eastern Quarterly 10 (November 1950—August 1951): 2–37. For early modern Japanese views of Russia, see Bob T. Wakabayashi, Anti-Foreignism and Western Learning in Early-Modern Japan: The New Theses of 1825 (Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Studies, 1986), 58–99.

2. Peter Berton, Paul F. Langer, and Rodger Swearingen, Japanese Training and Research in the Russian Field (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1956), 6.

3. Adding to this new Japanese interest in Russia, a study based on the interrogation notes of the Russian explorer Vasily Golovnin, who was captured by the Japanese in 1811 and held as a prisoner for two and a half years in Hokkaido, was published in Japanese a few years after his release. Japanese officials also used Golovnin to train their first Russian experts and expand their area studies material. See Vasily Golovnin, Memoirs of a Captivity in Japan, 1811–1813 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). Incidentally, Golovnin’s memoirs were the first extensive description of Japan by a Russian. Within a decade, they were translated into Japanese and several European languages.

4. Berton, Langer, and Swearingen, Japanese Training and Research in the Russian Field, 2–4.

5. It is suggestive that the Qing Empire had had similar anxieties about the Mongol population vis-à-vis the expanding Russian Empire. See Jonathan Schlesinger, A World Trimmed with Fur: Wild Things, Pristine Places, and the Natural Fringes of Qing Rule (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017).

6. Tessa Morris-Suzuki, “Lines in the Snow: Imagining the Russo-Japanese Frontier,” Pacific Affairs 72, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 69.

7. Kurosawa Fumitaka, “Edo, Meiji ki no Nichiro kankei: Roshia imēji wo chūshin ni,” Nihon rekishi 802, no. 3 (2015): 53–72.

8. Lensen, Russian Push toward Japan, 442–46; Key-Hiuk Kim, The Last Phase of the East Asian World Order: Korea, Japan, and the Chinese Empire, 1860–1882 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 218–19.

9. Wada Haruki, “Japanese-Russian Relations and the United States, 1855–1930,” in A Hidden Fire: Russian and Japanese Cultural Encounters, 1868–1926, ed. Thomas J. Rimer (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univerity Press, 1995), 205.

10. Shinichi Fumoto, “Russia’s Expansion to the Far East and Its Impact on Early Meiji Japan’s Korea Policy,” in Russia and Its Northeast Asian Neighbors: China, Japan, and Korea, 1858–1945, ed. Kimitaka Matsuzato (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018), 2–3.

11. Kurono Taeru, Teikoku kokubō hōshin no kenkyū: Riku-Kaigun kokubō shisō no tenkai to tokuchō (Tokyo: Sōwasha, 2000), 22.

12. England, France, the Netherlands, and the United States (later joined by Austria, Prussia, Denmark, and Sweden) belonged to the highest category of “civilized countries” (bunmei no kuni). After the second category, the list descends as follows: China, India, Turkey, Persia, and the African nations north of the Sahara were classified as “semi-enlightened countries” (hankai no kuni), while the nomadic tribes in Siberia, Central Asia, Arabia, and Africa were classified as “countries of uncivilized manners and customs” (izoku no kuni). Last were the “barbarians” (yaban): the American Indians and the natives of Africa and Australia. See Togawa Tsuguo, “The Japanese View of Russia before and after the Meiji Restoration,” in Hidden Fire, 215.

13. Asada Masafumi, Nichiro kindaishi: Sensō to heiwa no hyakunen (Tokyo: Kodansha, 2018), 31–33.

14. For the list of books published on Russia by the sojourners from the army, the navy, and the Foreign Ministry, see Berton, Langer, and Swearingen, Japanese Training and Research in the Russian Field, 18.

15. Enomoto Takeaki, Shiberia nikki, 3 vols. (Tokyo: Kaigun yūshūkai, 1935).

16. Sven Saaler, “Fukushima Yasumasa’s Travels in Central Asia and Siberia: Silk Road Romanticism, Military Reconnaissance, or Modern Exploration,” in Japan on the Silk Road, ed. Selçuk Esenbel (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 69–86.

17. John J. Stephan, The Russian Far East: A History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 77.

18. Igor Saveliev and Yuri Pestushko, “Dangerous Rapprochement: Russia and Japan in the First World War, 1914–1916,” Acta Slavica Iaponica 18 (2001): 31.

19. Yamamuro Shin’ichi, Nichiro sensō no seiki: Rensa shiten kara miru Nihon to sekai (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2005), 32–33.

20. George A. Lensen, “Japan and Tsarist Russia—The Changing Relationships, 1875–1917,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 10, no. 3 (October 1962): 340.

21. Yoshimura Akira, Nikorai sōnan (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993).

22. Robert T. Tierney, Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kōtoku Shūsui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015), 84.

23. Okamoto Shumpei, The Japanese Oligarchy and the Russo-Japanese War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 63–67.

24. Ian Nish, The Origins of the Russo-Japanese War (London: Routledge, 1985), 154.

25. Hosoya Chihiro, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” in Japan’s Foreign Policy, 1868–1941: A Research Guide, ed. James W. Morley and James B. Crowley (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), 371–72. Tanaka served in Manchuria, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel as an aide to General Kodama.

26. Okamoto, Japanese Oligarchy and the Russo-Japanese War, 63–67.

27. Sandra Wilson, “The Russo-Japanese War and Japan: Politics, Nationalism, and Historical Memory,” in The Russo-Japanese War in Cultural Perspective, ed. David Wells and Sandra Wilson (London: Palgrave Macmillian, 1999), 175.

28. The historian Andrew Malozemoff has argued, however, that the worsening of relations was not predetermined. It was left to Nicholas II to decide to intervene in 1895, as the Russian government was split on this question. However, it was up to Emperor Meiji to make the decision to conclude the anti-Russian Anglo-Japanese alliance in 1902 because the pro-Russian faction was quite strong and the Japanese counsels were divided to the last about whether to work with or against the Russians (Russian Far Eastern Policy, 1881–1904 [New York: Octagon Books, 1977]).

29. Seki Shizuo, “Taishō” saikō: Kibō to fuan no jidai (Kyoto: Mineruva Shobō, 2007), 107–28.

30. Tomoko Aoyama, “Japanese Literary Responses to the Russo-Japanese War,” in Russo-Japanese War in Cultural Perspective, 73.

31. David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, Toward the Rising Sun: Russian Ideologies of Empire and the Path to War with Japan (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2001). On the discourse of the “yellow race,” see Lensen, “Japan and Tsarist Russia”; and Rosamund Bartlett, “Japonisme and Japanophobia: The Russo-Japanese War in Russian Cultural Consciousness,” Russian Review 67, no. 1 (2008): 8–33.

32. Asukai Masamichi, Kindai bunka to shakaishugi (Tokyo: Shōbunsha, 1970), 95–96.

33. William G. Beasley, Japanese Imperialism, 1894–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 90–100; Alvin D. Coox, Nomonhan: Japan against Russia, 1939 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1985), 1–16.

34. Beasley, Japanese Imperialism, 97–98.

35. The association organized diplomatic meetings, encouraged development of trade between the two countries, provided a trade inquiry service and lectures in the Russian field, served as an information center for the Russian press, and sponsored research on the Russian economy.

36. Hara Teruyuki “Nichiro sensōgo no Roshia kyokutō—chiiki seisaku to kokusai kankyō,” Roshia shi kenkyū 72 (2003): 6–22; Vasilii Molodiakov, Rossiia i Iaponiia: Zolotoi vek (1905–1916) (Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 2008).

37. Hosoya, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” 373.

38. Saveliev and Pestushko, “Dangerous Rapprochement,” 20.

39. Hosoya, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” 376–77.

40. Saveliev and Pestushko, “Dangerous Rapprochement,” 21.

41. Yaroslav Shulatov, “Chōsen mondai wo meguru Nichiro kankei (1905–1907),” Surabu kenkyū 54 (2007): 183–205.

42. Ivan Sablin and Alexander Kuchinsky, “Making the Korean Nation in the Russian Far East, 1863–1926,” Nationalities Papers 45, no. 5 (2017): 798–814.

43. Wada Haruki, “Koreans in the Soviet Far East, 1917–1937,” in Koreans in the Soviet Union, ed. Dae-Sook Suh (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), 32; Boris Pak, Koreitsy v Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow: Moskovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1993).

44. Igor Saveliev, “Militant Diaspora: Korean Immigrants and Guerrillas in Early Twentieth Century Russia,” Forum of International Development Studies 26 (2004): 147–62.

45. Saveliev and Pestushko, “Dangerous Rapprochement,” 35.

46. Hara Teruyuki, “The Korean Movement in the Russian Maritime Province, 1905–1922,” in Koreans in the Soviet Union, 1–23.

47. Saveliev and Pestushko, “Dangerous Rapprochement,” 38.

48. Teramoto Yasutoshi, Nichiro sensō igo no Nihon gaikō: Pawā poritikusu no naka no Man-Kan mondai (Tokyo: Shinzansha, 1999); Sakamoto Masako, Zaibatsu to teikokushugi: Mitsui Bussan to Chūgoku (Kyoto: Mineruva Shobō, 2003).

49. Beasley, Japanese Imperialism, 119.

50. On the recent assessment of Russo-Japanese relations in this period, see Kurosawa Fumitaka, “Meiji sue, Taishō shoki no Nichiro kankei: Teki ka mikata ka, hatamata tomo ka?” Journal of the Diplomatic Archives 30, no. 3 (2017): 57–74.

51. Eduard Baryshev, Nichiro dōmei no jidai, 1914–1917: “Reigaitekina yūkō” no shinsō (Fukuoka: Hanashōin, 2007); Peter Berton, Russo-Japanese Relations, 1905–1917.

52. Sho Konishi, Anarchist Modernity Cooperatism and Japanese-Russian Intellectual Relations in Modern Japan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2013), 5.

53. Nobori Shomu and Akamatsu Katsumaro, The Russian Impact on Japan: Literature and Social Thought: Two Essays (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1981), 113.

54. Berton, Langer, and Swearingen, Japanese Training and Research in the Russian Field, 51–54.

55. Konishi, Anarchist Modernity, 93–141.

56. Tetsuo Mochizuki, “Japanese Perceptions of Russian Literature in the Meiji and Taisho Eras,” in Hidden Fire, 17–21.

57. Miki Kiyoshi, “Shesutofuteki fuan ni tsuite,” Kaizō (September 1934): 392–405.

58. Paul Anderer, “Kobayashi and Dostoevsky,” in Hidden Fire, 45.

59. Asada, Nichiro kindaishi, 58–62.

60. Wada, “Japanese-Russian Relations and the United States,” 206.

61. Chushichi Tsuzuki, “Kotoku, Osugi, and Japanese Anarchism,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies 3, no. 1 (1966): 30.

62. Asukai Masamichi, “Roshia Daiichiji Kakumei to Kōtoku Shūsui,” Shisō 520 (1967): 1–21.

63. Takeuchi Yoshimi, Nihon to Ajia (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1993), 343.

64. Wada, “Japanese-Russian Relations and the United States,” 208.

65. Ogino Fujio, Shoki shakaishugi shisōron (Tokyo: Fuji Shuppan, 1993); Matsuzawa Hiroaki, Nihon shakaishugi no shisō (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1973).

66. See, for example, Kōtoku Shūsui’s Shakaishugi shinzui (The Essence of Socialism, 1903); and Matsuzawa, Nihon shakaishugi no shisō, 17–22.

67. Hyman Kublin, “The Origins of the Japanese Socialist Tradition,” Journal of Politics 14, no. 2 (May 1952): 262.

68. In its first year, Heimin shinbun sold an impressive two hundred thousand copies, in addition to numerous copies distributed through socialist networks. The Heimin association organized 120 socialist meetings in 1904, including 13 women’s socialist association meetings, and established socialist organizations in over 20 cities and towns across Japan. It helped finance the Ashio copper mine riots in Hokkaido and organize the resettlement of those involved (Konishi, Anarchist Modernity, 189; Wilson, “Russo-Japanese War and Japan,” 174–75).

69. Vera Mackie, “Motherhood and Pacifism in Japan, 1900–1937,” Hecate 14, no. 2 (1988): 28–49; Nobuya Bamba, Pacifism in Japan: The Christian and Socialist Tradition (Kyoto: Minerva Press, 1980).

70. George T. Shea, Leftwing Literature in Japan (Tokyo: The Hosei University Press, 1964), 15.

71. Shea, Leftwing Literature in Japan, 16.

72. Hyman Kublin, “Japanese Socialists and the Russo-Japanese War,” Journal of Modern History 22 (1950): 322–23.

73. Asukai, Kindai bunka to shakaishugi, 195–231.

74. There were ninety thousand Russian POWs scattered in twenty-eight camps across Japan, but the most numerous one was in Nagasaki, where the POWs intersected with a Jewish émigré community (Konishi, Anarchist Modernity, 197–203).

75. While the Japanese police suppressed the publication of Heimin shinbun and harassed Kōtoku and his fellows, they deliberately overlooked Russo-Japanese socialist cooperation in regard to socialist propaganda among prisoners of war. The Japanese authorities hoped that Russian revolutionary activities would weaken and undermine the Russian imperial state.

76. For more detailed discussion, see Vladimir Tikhonov, “A Russian Radical and East Asia in the Early Twentieth Century: Sudzilovsky, China, and Japan,” Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review 18 (2016): 51.

77. Rebecca E. Karl, “Creating Asia: China in the World at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century,” American Historical Review 103, no. 4 (1998): 1113.

CHAPTER 2. REVOLUTION AND INTERVENTION

1. Hara Takashi, Hara Takashi nikki, ed. Hara Kei’ichirō (Tokyo: Kangensha edition, 1950–51), 7:142. The first commoner and leader of a majority party in the lower house of the Japanese Diet to become prime minister, Hara Takashi served from September 1918 to November 1921. He was assassinated on November 4, 1921, by a disgruntled nationalist angry at the Hara Cabinet’s approval of the reduction of the army budget, another consequence of the Siberian Intervention.

2. The Julian calendar (old style), which is thirteen days behind the Gregorian calendar (new style) of the West, was in use in Russia until 1918. From here on, new style dates will be used.

3. Ronald G. Suny, The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 35–44.

4. Harima Narakichi, “Rōnō kakumei jikkenki,” Jiji shinpō, March 31, 1917. For more information, see Kikuchi Masanori, Roshia kakumei to Nihonjin (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1973), 8–11.

5. Suny, Soviet Experiment, 42.

6. Asukai Masamichi, “Roshia kakumei to Nikō jiken,” in Taishōki no kyūshinteki jiyūshugi: Tōyō keizai shinpō wo chūshin toshite, ed. Inoue Kiyoshi and Watanabe Tōru (Tokyo: Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, 1972), 269.

7. Kikuchi, Roshia kakumei, 21.

8. Tomita Takeshi, Senkanki no Nisso kankei (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2010), 13.

9. Kikuchi, Roshia kakumei, 27.

10. Tomita, Senkanki no Nisso kankei, 14.

11. Kikuchi, Roshia kakumei, 37–48; Hara Teruyuki, Shiberia shuppei: Kakumei to kanshō (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1989), 125.

12. Asukai, “Roshia kakumei to Nikō jiken,” 299.

13. Mitsukawa Kametarō, Sangoku kanshō igo (Tokyo: Ronsōsha, 2004), 150–51. Waseda University became the hotbed of communist activities in Japan, accommodating early student communist groups and communist professors, among whom Sano Manabu, leader of the JCP, was the most famous.

14. Quoted from Sharon Nolte, Liberalism in Modern Japan: Ishibashi Tanzan and His Teachers, 1905–1960 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 152. Terauchi was forced to step down in September 1918 after the Rice Riots and was succeeded by Hara Takashi.

15. Kikuchi, Roshia kakumei, 14.

16. Mitsukawa, Sangoku kanshō igo, 149.

17. Peter Berton and Paul F. Langer, “Nobori Shomu: A Pioneer in Russo-Japanese Cultural Relations,” in The Russian Impact on Japan: Literature and Social Thought: Two Essays, ed. Nobori Shomu et al. (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1981), 13–20.

18. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Kakumei kachū no rodoku,” Shinshakai (May 1917).

19. Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 64–66.

20. Suny, Soviet Experiment, 56–64.

21. Allen S. Whiting, Soviet Policies in China, 1917–1924 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 30.

22. John J. Stephan, The Russian Far East: A History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 114–16.

23. Jamie Bisher, White Terror: Cossack Warlords of the Trans-Siberian (London: Routledge, 2005).

24. Gaimushō Hyakunenshi Hensan Iinkai, ed., Gaimushō no hyakunen (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, 1969), 1:673.

25. Tomita Takeshi, “Roshia Kakumei to Nihonjin,” Shisō 1119 (July 2017): 101.

26. Hara, Shiberia shuppei, 121.

27. Hara, Shiberia shuppei, 121.

28. Kikuchi, Roshia kakumei, 48–53. The Japanese newspapers relied heavily on British Reuters and uncritically accepted the negative British position toward the October Revolution. See also Mitsukawa Kametarō on the general hysteria in Japanese newspapers about the October Revolution, Lenin, and the advance of Germany (Mitsukawa, Sangoku kanshō igo, 153–55).

29. Hosoya Chihiro, Shiberia shuppei no shiteki kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2005 [1955]), 10.

30. Hosoya, Shiberia shuppei no shiteki kenkyū, 12.

31. Tomita, Senkanki no Nisso kankei, 14.

32. Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:675.

33. Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:677.

34. Tomita, Senkanki no Nisso kankei, 14.

35. Izao Tomio, “Shiberia shuppei kōzō no henyō: Terauchi naikaku oyobi gaikō chōsakai wo chūshin ni shite,” Hōsei Kenkyū 66, no. 4 (2000): 173n31.

36. Tomita, Senkanki no Nisso kankei, 16.

37. Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:681.

38. Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:687.

39. Hara, Shiberia shuppei, 292, 378–81.

40. Kitaoka Shin’ichi, Gotō Shinpei: Gaikō to bijon (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1988), 179.

41. Izao Tomio, “Shiberia shuppei ron no kōzō to haikei,” Kyūdai Hōgaku 78 (1999): 332.

42. Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:678.

43. Uchida Kōsai, Uchida Kōsai kankei shiryō shūsei, ed. Michihiko Kobayashi (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 2012), 3:213.

44. Uehara Yūsaku, Uehara Yūsaku nikki (Tokyo: Shōyū Kurabu, 2011), 70–75.

45. Leonard A. Humphreys, The Way of the Heavenly Sword: The Japanese Army in the 1920s (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), 26.

46. Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:674; Hosoya, Shiberia shuppei no shiteki kenkyū, 14.

47. David Wolff, “Open Jaw: A Harbin-Centered View of the Siberian-Manchurian Intervention 1917–1922,” Russian History 36, no. 3 (2009): 339–59.

48. Concessions included the construction of a railway line for military purposes between Harbin and Chanchung, and construction in Harbin of a telephone line for the military (Tomita, Senkanki no Nisso kankei, 17–21). Araki did not trust the general because of his preference for US and British help and instead actively supported Ataman Semenov.

49. For Japanese expansion into Chinese politics in 1918, see Itō Masanori, “Shiberia shuppei go no Tōshin tetsudō mondai (1924–1928): Nisso kankei no ichi sokumen,” Sophia Historical Studies 36 (1991): 29–50; and Guoqi Xu, China and the Great War: China’s Pursuit of a New National Identity and Internationalization (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 235–36.

50. For more detailed discussion of the Siberian Intervention, see James Morley, The Japanese Thrust into Siberia, 1918 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958); and Paul Dunscomb, Japan’s Siberian Intervention, 1918–1922: “A Great Disobedience against the People” (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011). In Japanese, Hosoya Chihiro’s Shiberia shuppei no shiteki kenkyū and Hara Teruyuki’s Shiberia shuppei are still the most authoritative studies. In Japanese scholarship interest has surged in the Siberian Intervention as the precursor to Japanese expansionism in China in the 1930s. See Asada Masafumi, Shiberia shuppei: Kindai Nihon no wasurerareta shichinen sensō (Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha, 2016).

51. George Kennan, Soviet-American Relations, 1917–1920 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956), 484.

52. Four great powers were involved—Britain, France, Japan, and the United States. Britain and the United States intervened also in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, the northwestern part of Russia, in March and August 1918, respectively, to protect military supply matériel, believed to be threatened by German-supported Finnish forces. Although there was some fighting with the Bolsheviks, the northern front was not that important for the outcome of the Civil War. Britain also dispatched troops to Central Asia, fearing the Turks’ advance through Afghanistan to India. The French in Ukraine withdrew their forces in early 1919, without any fighting. Thus, the only important danger for the new Bolshevik government was the Japanese army in Siberia and the Russian Far East.

53. Izao Tomio, Shoki Shiberia shuppei no kenkyū: “Atarashiki kyūseigun” kōsō no tōjō to tenkai (Fukuoka: Kyūshū Daigaku Shuppankai, 2003), 34–35.

54. Izao, Shoki Shiberia shuppei no kenkyū, 143–46; Shibata Yoshimasa, “Shiberia shuppeiki tairo bōeki gyōsha shiensaku to Nichiro jitsugyō kabushiki gaisha no katsudō,” Tōyō kenkyū 195, no. 1 (2015): 1–45.

55. Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:688. The Japanese government initiated a Japanese yen economic zone in northeast Asia by issuing and circulating banknotes of the Bank of Chosen (the central bank of Japanese colonial Korea), or gold-backed Japanese military notes in Manchuria, Siberia, and the Russian Far East. The bank had nine branches and offices in Siberia, and its currency was favored by the locals over the discredited Russian currency. It was used for tax payments in the Far Eastern Republic and subsequently in Soviet Russia. Around 4 percent of the banknotes issued were to be found in Siberia by the end of 1921, 17 percent of the bank’s total lending was in Manchuria and Siberia by the end of 1924. The Vladivostok branch of the bank operated until 1930. Eighty percent of the trade that passed through the port of Vladivostok was handled by Japanese trading firms. See Keishi Ono, “The Siberian Intervention and Japanese Society,” in Japan and the Great War, ed. Oliviero Frattolillo and Antony Best (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 103–4.

56. Matsuoka’s proposal for the removal of restrictions on the rights of foreigners to hold land, mine and explore mineral deposits, harvest the forest, navigate inland waters, and engage in coastal trade in Siberia, and open Vladivostok as a free port were rejected by Uchida and Shidehara. See David J. Lu, Agony of Choice: Matsuoka Yōsuke and the Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1880–1946 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002), 32–34.

57. Wolff, “Open Jaw,” 357.

58. There were numerous reports that Japanese soldiers and officers did not pay in shops and would often beat shop owners with rifle butts if confronted. There were also reports about the rape of local women.

59. Hara, Shiberia shuppei, 390.

60. Uchida, Uchida Kōsai kankei shiryō shūsei, 3:250–51.

61. Hosoya Chihiro, “Nihon to Koruchāku seiken shōnin mondai,” Hitotsubashi Daigaku Hōgaku Kenkyū, no. 3 (1961): 13–135; Gaimushō no hyakunen, 1:685–90.

62. See also Elena Varneck and Harold Fisher, eds., Testimony of Kolchak and Other Siberian Materials (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1935), 107–30. Semenov was captured by the Red Army in Harbin in 1945 and executed after trial in Moscow in 1946.

63. George Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR: Soviet-Japanese Relations, 1921–1930 (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1970), 9–48.

64. Hara Teruyuki, “Nikō jiken no shomondai,” Roshia shi kenkyū 23 (1975), 2–17. For Japanese official and semi-official statements, see Varneck and Fisher, Testimony of Kolchak, 359–65.

65. Kobayashi Yukio, Nisso seiji gaikōshi: Roshia kakumei to Chian ijihō (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1985), 225.

66. Hara Teruyuki, “Japan Moves North: The Japanese Occupation of Northern Sakhalin (1920s),” in Rediscovering Russia in Asia: Siberia and the Russian Far East, ed. Stephen Kotkin and David Wolff (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1995), 55–67.

67. Elena Varneck and Harold Fisher, eds., Testimony of Kolchak, 334.

68. On the “Korean factor” of Japan’s intervention in Siberia, see Kan Dokusan, “Nihon teikokushugi no Chōsen shihai to Roshia kakumei,” Rekishigaku kenkyū 329 (1969), 37–76; and Hara Teruyuki, “Kyokutō Roshia ni okeru Chōsen dokuritsu undō to Nihon,” Sanzenri, no. 17 (February 1979): 47–53; Kobayashi, Nisso seiji gaikō shi, 213–24.

69. Chong-Sik Lee, Revolutionary Struggle in Manchuria: Chinese Communism and Soviet Interest 1922–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 26–35.

70. Erik W. Esselstrom, “Rethinking the Colonial Conquest of Manchuria: The Japanese Consular Police in Jiandao, 1909–1937,” Modern Asian Studies 39, no. 1 (2005): 39–75.

71. Nikita A. Popov, Oni s nami srazalis' za vlast' sovetov: Kitaiskie dobrovol'tsy na frontakh grazhdanskoi voiny v Rossii (1918–1922) (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1959), 127.

72. Popov, Oni s nami srazilis', 141.

73. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 13–14, note c.

74. The catchphrase “Korea lies like a dagger ever pointed toward the very heart of Japan” was first popularized in the 1880s and reflected modern Japan’s strategic anxieties and predatory interests in Korea. See Peter Duus, The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895–1910 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).

75. Erik Esselstrom, Crossing Empire’s Edge: Foreign Ministry Police and Japanese Expansionism in Northeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2009), 73.

76. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 13–14, note c.

77. Esselstrom, “Rethinking the Colonial Conquest of Manchuria,” 46–50.

78. John W. Young, “The Hara Cabinet and Chang,” Monumenta Nipponica 27, no. 2 (1972): 140.

79. Esselstrom, Crossing Empire’s Edge, 78–85.

80. Japanese fishermen were most in contact with the Russians and were thus often subjected to communist propaganda. “The propaganda was disseminated by pistol-packing Japanese and Korean Communists, who came to the Japanese fishing sheds allegedly under the protection of the Soviet secret police, made speeches, and distributed printed material” (Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 349).

81. Lee, Revolutionary Struggle in Manchuria, 11–13.

82. Humphreys, Way of the Heavenly Sword, 45–46.

83. Petr Podalko, Iaponiia v sud'bakh rossiian: Ocherki istorii tsarskoi diplomatii i rossiiskoi diaspory v Iaponii (Moscow: Institut vostokovedeniia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2004), 118–69.

CHAPTER 3. THE ANTI-WESTERN REVOLUTION

1. Fuke Takahiro, Mitsukawa Kametarō: Kōgai no kokorozashi nao sonsu (Tokyo: Mineruva Shobō, 2016), 152–54.

2. Sven Saaler, “Pan-Asianism in Modern Japanese History: Overcoming the Nation, Creating a Region, Forging an Empire,” in Pan-Asianism in Modern Japanese History, ed. Sven Saaler and Victor Koschmann (London: Routledge, 2007), 2. In Japanese, see Matsuura Masataka, “Dai Tōa Sensō” wa naze okita no ka: Han Ajiashugi no seiji keizaishi (Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, 2010).

3. Christopher Szpilman, “Between Pan-Asianism and Nationalism: Mitsukawa Kametarō and His Campaign to Reform Japan and Liberate Asia,” in Pan-Asianism in Modern Japanese History, ed. Sven Saaler and Victor Koschmann, 91.

4. Marius Jansen, The Japanese and Sun Yat-Sen (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954).

5. Mitsukawa remains largely unknown in Anglophone historiography. See Christopher Szpilman, “Mitsukawa Kametarō: A Brief Biographical Sketch,” in Mitsukawa Kametarō: Chiiki, chikyū jijō no keimōsha, ed. Christopher Szpilman (Tokyo: Takushoku Daigaku Shuppankyoku, 2001), 512–20; and Szpilman, “Between Pan-Asianism and Nationalism.” In Japanese, see Fuke, Mitsukawa Kametarō.

6. Tetsuya Sakai, “The Soviet Factor in Japanese Foreign Policy, 1923–1937,” Acta Slavica Iaponica 6 (1988): 28.

7. The language of Asian solidarity gained new momentum after the Russo-Japanese War, as Indian, Chinese, and Vietnamese anticolonial nationalists flocked to Japan. It was, however, Mitsukawa’s encounter with the Indian sojourners and anticolonial activists in exile in Japan (which by 1941 reached one thousand people) that proved to be formative for his subsequent political activities and outlook. See Mitsukawa Kametarō, Sangoku kanshō igo, ed. Hasegawa Yūichi (Tokyo: Ronsōsha, 2004), 128–32.

8. Ōkawa Shūmei held a doctoral degree from Tokyo Imperial University in Indian philosophy, but by 1916 he had emerged as a leading advocate in Japan for India’s independence from British colonial rule because of the publication of his first major work on India, The Origin and the Present State of the Nationalist Movement in India (Indo ni okeru kokumin undō no genjō oyobi yurai, 1916). Ōkawa is credited as one of the first to use the term “Pan-Asianism” in 1917, which encompassed not only the traditional East Asian region (China, Korea, Japan) but also the South and West Asian regions. Ōkawa was prosecuted at the Tokyo Tribunal as a Class A war criminal but was acquitted as mentally unfit after he knocked the former prime minister, Tōjō Hideki, on the head during the trial. See Christopher Szpilman, “The Dream of One Asia: Ōkawa Shūmei and Japanese Pan-Asianism,” in The Japanese Empire in East Asia and Its Postwar Legacy, ed. Harald Fuess (Munich: Ludicium, 1998), 49–63.

9. Christopher Szpilman, “Kaidai,” in Mitsukawa Kametarō, ed. Szpilman, 1:459.

10. Ōkawa Shūmei, “Sovieto renpō no taigai seisaku,” Ōkawa Shūmei zenshū (Tokyo: Kankōkai, 1962), 4:534.

11. Quoted in George M. Wilson, Radical Nationalist in Japan: Kita Ikki, 1883–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 68.

12. The pamphlet is included in Mitsukawa, Sangoku kanshō igo, 297–301.

13. Mitsukawa, “Naze ni Borushevizumu wo teki to nasu ka,” in Sangoku kanshō igo, 297.

14. Mitsukawa, Sangoku kanshō igo, 156–57.

15. Matsumoto Ken’ichi, Ōkawa Shūmei (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2004), 162.

16. Matsumoto, Ōkawa Shūmei, 158. Although critical of the government’s handling of the Rice Riots, Ōkawa, unlike Mitsukawa, never openly criticized the Siberian Intervention or Japan’s Twenty-One Demands to China.

17. Itō Takashi, Shōwa shoki seiji shi kenkyū (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1969); Gregory J. Kasza, “Fascism from Below? A Comparative Perspective on the Japanese Right, 1931–1936,” Journal of Contemporary History 19, no. 4 (1984): 607–29.

18. Ōkawa Shūmei, “5/15 Jiken jinmon chōsho,” in Ōkawa Shūmei zenshū (Tokyo: Kankōkai, 1962), 5:683–84.

19. Mitsukawa, Sangoku kanshō igo, 172. Minshushugi was represented by the rival of the Rōsōkai, the liberal Reimeikai, founded by Yoshino Sakuzō and Fukuda Tokuzō, discussed in the next chapter.

20. Szpilman, “Kaidai,” 460.

21. For example, Kanokogi Kazunobu, a professor of philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University and a member of the Yūzonsha, wrote about a totalitarian state, mass mobilization and planned economy since 1918, with often references to the Soviet state-building. For more on Kanokogi, see Christopher Szpilman, “Kanokogi Kazunobu: Pioneer of Platonic Fascism and Imperial Pan-Asianism,” Monumenta Nipponica 2, no. 2 (2013): 233–80.

22. Ōkawa Shūmei, “Kakumei Yōroppa to Fukkō Ajia,” in Fukkō Ajia no shomondai (Tokyo: Meiji Shobō, 1939).

23. Boris Nicolaevsky, “Russia, Japan, and the Pan-Asiatic Movement to 1925,” Far Eastern Quarterly, no. 3 (1949): 269.

24. The argument that Russia was part of Asia gained even more traction after the establishment of Manchukuo, which was envisioned as a union of the East and the West and had a sizable population of Russian Slavic and other Asian (Kalmyk, Buryat, Bashkir, Tatar, etc.) émigré communities, which the Japanese administrators sought to integrate into the new state. See Mitsukawa, “Ishin kanreki to kyōsen jūnen,” in Mitsukawa Kametarō, ed. Szpilman, 1:239–49.

25. Yukiko Hama, “Russia from a Pan-Asianist View: Saburo Shimano and His Activities,” Ab Imperio, no. 3 (2010): 227–43.

26. Mitsukawa, “Shingunkoku Roshia no shutsugen to Nihon,” Chūgai, no. 1 (June 1921).

27. Ōkawa Shūmei, “Atarashiki sekai sen,” Kaihō (May 1920).

28. Ōkawa, Fukkō Ajia, 7, 162–76, 170–85.

29. In fact, not only Mitsukawa but other pan-Asianists as well had friends among Japanese communists. Ōkawa assisted a colleague at Takushoku University who was persecuted as a communist and arrested. Kita Ikki also helped provide accommodation for his Korean communist friend, who was escaping police. See Matsumoto, Ōkawa Shūmei, 7.

30. Mitsukawa, “Taihō kensetsu no risō,” Shakai kyōiku kenkyūjo rīfuretto 5 (Tokyo: Shakai Kyōiku Kenkyūjo, 1925), 7–8.

31. Mitsukawa, “Taihō kensetsu no risō,” 7–8.

32. Mitsukawa, Sangoku kanshō igo, 187–90.

33. Matsuo Takayoshi, “Wasurerareta kakumeika Takao Heibē,” Shisō, no. 577 (July 1972): 88–113.

34. Vasilii Molodiakov, ed., Katsura Taro, Goto Simpei i Rossiia: Sbornik dokumentov 1907–1929 (Moscow: AIRO, 2005), Doc. 57, 122–23.

35. Thomas Stanley, Ōsugi Sakae, Anarchist in Taishō Japan: The Creativity of the Ego (Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Studies, 1982), 199n.42.

36. Mitani Taichirō, Nihon seitō seiji no keisei: Hara Kei seiji shidō no tenkai (Tokyo: Tokyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1995), 97–103, 305.

37. Tanaka Sōgorō, Kita Ikki: Nihonteki fashisuto no shōchō (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1959), 250–51.

38. Molodiakov, Katsura Taro, Goto Simpei i Rossiia, Doc. 64, 183.

39. Mitsukawa, Sekai gensei to Dai Nihon (Tokyo: Kōchisha, 1926).

40. Among the examples of how socialism can destroy people’s lives, Kita picked the idea of free love and the rejection of the institution of marriage. Kita cited the love triangle of Kōtoku Shūsui, Arahata Kanson, and Kano Suga, as well as the notorious private life of Ōsugi Sakae. See Kita Ikki’s letter to Yamaga Taiji in Mitsukawa Kametarō, Mitsukawa Kametarō shokanshū: Kita Ikki, Ōkawa Shumei, Nishida Mitsugi ra no shokan, ed. Hasegawa Yuichi, Christopher W. Szpilman, and Imazu Toshiaki (Tokyo: Ronsōsha, 2012), 78–79. Yamaga Taiji (1892–1970) was an anarchist and a close friend of Ōsugi Sakae, on whose advice he moved to China to work with Chinese anarchists. He lived in Kita Ikki’s house when he was young and was therefore viewed by Kita as his younger brother.

41. Kita Ikki’s letter to Yamaga Taiji, in Mitsukawa, Mitsukawa Kametarō shokanshū, ed. Hasegawa, Szpilman, and Imazu, 73–80.

42. Christopher W. Szpilman, “Kita Ikki and the Politics of Coercion,” Modern Asian Studies 36, no. 2 (2002): 467–90.

43. Wilson, Radical Nationalist in Japan, 104.

44. Xenia J. Eudin and Robert C. North, Soviet Russia and the East, 1920–1927: A Documentary Survey (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957), 209.

45. Nicolaevsky, “Russia, Japan, and the Pan-Asiatic Movement to 1925,” 266.

46. Gotō had, to a degree, been known as Russia’s patron. As we may recall, Gotō was the first president of the SMRC between 1906 and 1908 and was the one who convinced Itō Hirobumi to go to Harbin in 1909 to meet with a Russian representative in Manchuria, where Itō was assassinated by a Korean nationalist. Gotō also obtained funds and the support of the government and the Kwantung Army to establish the Harbin Institute of Russian Studies (Harupin Gakuin) in 1920, whose graduates, it was hoped, would play as important a role in later Russo-Japanese relations as the students of Tōa Dōbun Shoin (East Asia Common Culture Academy) had done in Sino-Japanese trade and diplomacy. Gotō also served as a long-term president of the Russo-Japanese Society, an important venue for academic, business, and cultural relations.

47. Hosoya Chihiro, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” in Japan’s Foreign Policy, 1868–1941: A Research Guide, ed. James W. Morley and James B. Crowley (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), 392.

48. Gaimushō [Japanese Foreign Office], ed., Nihon gaikō bunsho (Tokyo: Nihon Kokusai Kyōkai, 1953–64), 1:759–61, 821–55. Lenin granted a concession to the US oil company Sinclair in Sakhalin during the intervention. George A. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1979), 106.

49. Tsurumi Yūsuke, Gotō Shinpei (Tokyo: Fujiwara Shoten, 2004–6), 8:70–78.

50. Gotō’s memorandum to the cabinet from February 1923. Quoted from Hosoya, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” 392.

51. Kitaoka Shin’ichi, Gotō Shinpei: Gaikō to bijon (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 2000), 224.

52. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 104–105.

53. Sakai Tetsuya, Taishō demokurashī taisei no hōkai: Naisei to gaikō (Tokyo: Tokyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992), 154.

54. Sakai, Taishō demokurashī taisei no hōkai, 153–54.

55. Molodiakov, Katsura Taro, Goto Simpei i Rossiia, Doc. 57, 129.

56. Daba Hiroshi, “Gotō, Ioffe kōshō zengo no Gen’yōsha, Kokuryūkai,” Takushoku Daigaku Hyakunen Shi Kenkyū, no. 6 (2001): 30–45.

57. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 89.

58. Tsurumi, Gotō Shinpei, 7:610.

59. Molodiakov, Katsura Taro, Goto Simpei i Rossiia, Doc. 57, 132.

60. Tsurumi, Gotō Shinpei, 7:611–12.

61. Kitaoka, Gotō Shinpei, 220.

62. Mitsukawa, Mitsukawa Kametarō, ed. Szpilman, 2:4.

63. Kitaoka, Gotō Shinpei, 220. For contemporary newspaper coverage of Trotsky’s fall, see Japan Weekly Chronicle (March 8, 1928), 276–77.

64. Podalko, Iaponiia v sud'bakh rossiian, 133–34.

65. Sakai, Taishō demokurashī taisei no hōkai, 178n19.

66. Charles M. Beard, Cross Currents in Europe Today (Boston: Marshall Jones, 1922), 163–81.

67. Vasilii Molodiakov, Goto Simpei i russko-iaponskie otnosheniia (Moscow: AIRO, 2006), 143–45.

68. Quoted in Hosoya, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” 392.

69. Tsurumi, Gotō Shinpei, 7:611–12.

70. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 109.

71. Gotō’s memorandum from February 1923. Quoted in Hosoya, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” 392.

72. Quoted in Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 109.

73. Allen S. Whiting, Soviet Policies in China, 1917–1924 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 221–23.

74. Gaimushō Hyakunenshi Hensan Iinkai, ed., Gaimushō no hyakunen (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, 1969), 1:487.

75. Quoted in Hosoya, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” 393–94.

76. Erik Esselstrom, Crossing Empire’s Edge: Foreign Ministry Police and Japanese Expansionism in Northeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2009), 65–91.

77. Iriye, After Imperialism, 50–51.

78. Quoted in Iriye, After Imperialism, 51.

79. Hattori Ryūji, Higashi Ajia kokusai kankyō no hendō to Nihon gaikō, 1918–1931 (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 2001), 231.

80. Molodiakov, Goto Simpei i russko-iaponskie otnosheniia, 182.

81. Tsurumi, Gotō Shinpei, 8:119–26.

82. Interestingly, the Soviet deputy Ioffe in his reports from Tokyo in the spring of 1923 mentioned that, considering present stable capitalist relations in Japan and the insignificant number of Japan’s industrial proletariat, no socialist or bourgeois revolution in Japan seemed to be possible (Katsura Taro, Goto Simpei i Rossiia, Doc. 57, 140).

83. Katsura Taro, Goto Simpei i Rossiia, Doc. 95, 269–70.

84. Molodiakov, Goto Simpei i russko-iaponskie otnosheniia, 182.

85. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 180.

86. Quoted in Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 345.

87. Kobayashi Yukio, Nisso seiji gaikōshi: Roshia kakumei to Chian ijihō (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1985), 152–53.

88. Pravda, no. 18 (January 22, 1925), 3. Quoted in Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 321.

89. Chong-Sik Lee, Revolutionary Struggle in Manchuria: Chinese Communism and Soviet Interest 1922–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 62–94.

90. Tomita Takeshi, Senkanki no nisso kankei: 1917–1937 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2010), 53–55.

91. Nevertheless, economic gains were huge for Japan. Japanese businesses operated lumber, ore, and fur concessions, dominated banking and shipping in the Russian Far East, and controlled 90 percent of Far Eastern fisheries. Japanese fishery companies employed 22,600 Japanese in 1925 and 38,600 in 1930; in Kamchatka, seasonal Japanese workers outnumbered the local population. Smooth business operations were ensured by Japanese consulates in Khabarovsk, Blagoveshchensk, Petropavlovsk, and Aleksandrovsk (North Sakhalin). Basically, during the 1920s the Russian Far East was developed with Japanese money. See John J. Stephan, The Russian Far East: A History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 163–77.

92. Bruce A. Elleman, “The Soviet Union’s Secret Diplomacy concerning the Chinese Eastern Railway, 1924–1925,” Journal of Asian Studies 53, no. 2 (1994): 459–86.

93. Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 321–22.

94. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 365.

95. Quoted in Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 321–22.

96. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR, 196–202.

97. Szpilman, “Between Pan-Asianism and Nationalism,” 92–93.

98. Mitsukawa Kametarō, “Tōyōdai ni kakuramutosu,” in Mitsukawa Kametarō, ed. Szpilman, 160–63.

99. Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 321–22.

100. Molodiakov, Goto Simpei i russko-iaponskie otnosheniia, 160–61.

101. For how serious the Soviet leadership was in regard to the issue of Japanese immigration and the general policy of appeasement of Japan, see the strictly confidential resolution “Voprosy nashei politiki v otnoshenii Kitaia i Iaponii” (April 1, 1926), in Grant M. Adibekov and Wada Haruki, eds., VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 1917–1941 (Moscow: Rosspen, 2001), Doc. 9, 28–34. The resolution also mentions the possibility of a Soviet-Chinese-Japanese alliance.

102. Molodiakov, Goto Simpei i russko-iaponskie otnosheniia, 162–63.

103. Nakano Seigō, “Nichiro shinkō no shinkachi,” Warekan (March 1925).

104. Nakano Seigō’s statement is quoted in Arima Manabu, “Kokusaika” no naka no teikoku Nihon, 1905–1924 (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1999), 252.

105. Katsura Taro, Goto Simpei i Rossiia, Doc. 70, 201–4.

106. Hattori, Higashi Ajia kokusai kankyō no hendō, 79.

107. Hosoya, “Japan’s Foreign Policy toward Russia,” 379–80.

108. Quoted from Suda Teiichi, “Shihaisō ni okeru seiji rinri no keisha: Nisso kōshō shi wo chūshin toshite,” Shisō 391 (January 1957), 75–87.

109. Janis Mimura, Planning for Empire: Reform Bureaucrats and the Japanese Wartime State (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), 25.

110. Molodiakov, Goto Simpei i russko-iaponskie otnosheniia, 168–69.

111. Japan Weekly Chronicle (October 27, 1927), 443.

112. Kurono Taeru, Teikoku kokubō hōshin no kenkyū: Riku-Kaigun kokubō shisō no tenkai to tokuchō (Tokyo: Sōwasha, 2000), 109.

113. Molodiakov, Goto Simpei i russko-iaponskie otnosheniia, 183–87.

114. Mitsukawa Kametarō, “Kakumeiteki Daiteikoku,” in Mitsukawa Kametarō, ed. Szpilman, 478–79.

115. Kitaoka, Gotō Shinpei, 221.

116. Kitaoka, Gotō Shinpei, 221.

117. Mitsukawa, “Ishin kanreki,” 245–246.

118. Mitsukawa, “Tōyōdai ni kakuramutosu,” 160–63.

119. Li Narangoa, “Japanese Geopolitics and the Mongol Lands, 1915–1945,” European Journal of East Asian Studies 3, no. 1 (2004): 45–67.

120. Szpilman, “Kaidai,” 460. See also Mitsukawa, “Ishin kanreki,” 249.

121. Ronald G. Suny, The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 152.

122. Quoted in Nicolaevsky, “Russia, Japan, and the Pan-Asiatic Movement to 1925,” 285.

123. Nicolaevsky, “Russia, Japan, and the Pan-Asiatic Movement to 1925,” 263.

124. Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 43–44.

125. Nicolaevsky, “Russia, Japan, and the Pan-Asiatic Movement to 1925,” 283.

126. Nichi nichi was one of Japan’s leading newspapers, with a circulation of about two million. The Russian text of Fuse’s interview with Stalin was first published in Pravda, Moscow, July 4, 1925 (Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 335–37).

127. Sakai, Taishō demokurashī taisei no hōkai, 152.

128. Wada Haruki, “Japanese-Russian Relations and the United States, 1855–1930,” in A Hidden Fire: Russian and Japanese Cultural Encounters, 1868–1926, ed. Thomas J. Rimer (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univerity Press, 1995), 213.

129. Quoted in Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 336.

130. See Stalin’s statement in his “Political Report for the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” at the Fourteenth Congress of the CPSU on December 19, 1925. Quoted in Lee, Revolutionary Struggle in Manchuria, 88. Stalin’s statement was carefully discussed and prepared at the China Commission (Kitaiskaia kommissiia) meeting of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on December 3, 1925. See Adibekov and Wada, VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, Doc. 7, 27.

CHAPTER 4. ANTICOMMUNISM WITHIN

1. Matsuo Takayoshi, “Daiichiji taisengo no fusen undō,” in Taishōki no seiji to shakai, ed. Inoue Kiyoshi (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1969), 159–204.

2. Peter Duus, “Liberal Intellectuals and Social Conflict in Taishō Japan,” in Conflict in Modern Japanese History, ed. Tetsuo Najita and Victor J. Koschmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982), 412–40; Peter Duus and Irwin Scheiner, “Socialism, Liberalism, and Marxism, 1901–1931,” in The Cambridge History of Japan, ed. Peter Duus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 654–710.

3. Yoshino Sakuzō, “Roshia no kakumei,” Chūō Kōron (April 1917).

4. Yoshino Sakuzō, “Minponshugi, shakaishugi, kagekishugi,” Chūō Kōron (June 1919), 26–34. “Orthodox” socialism came to be understood in terms of Karl Kautsky’s doctrinal interpretation of Marx’s and Engels’ ideas and became universally accepted. As scientific socialism, it promoted the evolutionist, determinist, and scientific form of Marxism. See Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 2:31–60.

5. Murobuse Kōshin, “Kokka shakaishugi no hihyō,” Hihyō (July 1919); Ōyama Ikuo, “Rokoku kagekiha no jisseiryoku ni taisuru kashōshi to kono seiji shisō no kachi ni taisuru kadaishi,” Chūō Kōron (May 1918). Ōyama would become a Marxist in 1922 and later a leader of a proletarian party movement. Murobuse Kōshin, in contrast, while frequently changing his position, ended up supporting Japanese imperialist expansion in South Asia.

6. Peter Duus, “Ōyama Ikuo and the Search for Democracy,” in Dilemmas of Growth in Prewar Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971), ed. James William Morley, 434.

7. Quoted in Jung-Sun N. Han, “Envisioning a Liberal Empire in East Asia: Yoshino Sakuzō in Taishō Japan,” Journal of Japanese Studies 33, no. 2 (2007): 376.

8. Leonard A. Humphreys, The Way of the Heavenly Sword: The Japanese Army in the 1920s (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), 51–52. For example, in “One Lesson of the World War” (Tokyo nichi nichi shinbun, January 4, 1918), an army general promoted universal suffrage as it would aid state and military mobilization. See Mitani Taichirō, Nihon seitō seiji no keisei: Hara Kei seijishidō no tenkai (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1995), 97–103, 305.

9. Kokuryūkai’s magazine Ajia jiron published extensively on the army’s issues. See Hara Teruyuki, Shiberia shuppei: Kakumei to kanshō 1917–1922 (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1989), 421. For more on the soldiers’ insubordination during the Siberian Intervention, see Fujiwara Akira, “Nihon guntai ni okeru kakumei to hankakumei,” Hitotsubashi University, Departmental Bulletin, no. 10 (March 31, 1969): 85–123. Among the most famous records of the Siberian expedition are the diaries of Kuroshima Denji (Guntai Nikki) and Matsuo Katsuzō (Shiberia shuppei nikki).

10. Yoshino Sakuzō, “Seinen shōkō no mitaru Shiberia shuppei gun no jitsujō,” Chūō kōron (May 1922).

11. Hara, Shiberia shuppei, 424.

12. Hara, Shiberia shuppei, 570–71.

13. Uehara Yūsaku, Uehara Yūsaku nikki (Tokyo: Shōyū Kurabu, 2011), 79–81. We don’t know what they talked about. The diary entry mentions Fukuda’s name and time allocated for the meetings, usually the whole morning.

14. For more about Fukuda, see Inoue Takutoshi and Yagi Kiichiro, “Two Inquiries on the Divide: Tokuzō Fukuda and Hajime Kawakami,” in Economic Thought and Modernization in Japan, ed. Sugihara Shiro and Tanaka Toshihiro (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998), 60–77. In Korea, Fukuda is known almost exclusively as the author of the original stagnation theory that would become one of the perennial ideological props of Japanese colonial rule on the peninsula (Owen Miller, “The Idea of Stagnation in Korean Historiography,” Korean Histories 2, no. 1 [2010]: 3–12). On Fukuda’s influence on Chinese Marxists see Ishikawa Yoshihiro, “Chinese Marxism in the Early 20th Century and Japan,” Sino-Japanese Studies 14 (April 2002): 24–34.

15. Fukuda Tokuzō, “Nihon ni shakaishugi okoru naki ya,” Kyokutō jihō (October 14, 1917).

16. Fukuda Tokuzō, “Tadashiki rikai wo yōsu,” Roshia hihyō (July 1919), in Taishō daizasshi (Tokyo: Ryūdō Shuppan, 1978), 132–33.

17. Fukuda, “Tadashiki rikai wo yōsu,” 132–33.

18. Fukuda Tokuzō, Reimeiroku (Tokyo: Daitōkaku, 1920), 1039.

19. Itō Narihiko, “Nihon shakaishugi undō to Rōsa Rukusenburugu,” Shisō 568 (October 1971): 39–55.

20. Fukuda, Reimeiroku, 870–77.

21. Fukuda, Reimeiroku, 1039.

22. Aoki Seiichi, “Shakai seikatsu no kekkan ni yotte,” Roshia hihyō (July 1919), in Taishō daizasshi, 134–35. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was introduced to Japan during the Siberian Intervention, first by an early graduate of the Russian Orthodox Nikolai Seminary in Tokyo and the Theological Seminary in Saint Petersburg, Higuchi Tsuyanosuke (1870–1931), who was a professor of the Russian language in the army during the intervention. In 1921, Higuchi published his collected lectures under the title Yudayaka (The Jewish peril), thus coining the Japanese term. Shiōten Nobutaka, a member of the military staff in Vladivostok during the intervention, was the first Japanese-language translator of the Protocols. See David G. Goodman and Masanori Miyazawa, Jews in the Japanese Mind: The History and Uses of a Cultural Stereotype (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2000), 81.

23. Murobose Kōshin, “Kageki shisō to Nihon,” Roshia hihyō, in Taishō daizasshi, 138–39.

24. Ōba Kakō, “Kagekihashugi to minshūshugi,” Roshia hihyō, in Taishō daizasshi, 136–37. Ōba’s fate, however, was tragic. In late 1921, he went to Russia as a journalist but was arrested in Chita on suspicion of being a Japanese spy. Very little is known about what happened to him, but he was most likely executed around 1924 in Siberia. See Kume Shigeru, Kieta shinbun kisha (Tokyo: Yuki Shobō, 1968).

25. Kemuyama Sentarō, “Raido wo itashimeyo,” Roshia hihyō, in Taishō daizasshi, 135.

26. Kayahara Kazan, “Konton yori konton he,” Roshia hihyō, in Taishō daizasshi, 137–38.

27. Fukuda, Reimeiroku, 1054–55.

28. Yoshino Sakuzō, “Tandoku kōwa ni yotte Rokoku wa nanimono wo toran tosuru,” Chūō Kōron (January 1918); “Kageki shisō taisaku,” Chūō Kōronsha (May 1919).

29. Fukuda, Reimeiroku, 1039.

30. Sheldon Garon writes about the new mood of pragmatic reform and even democratic idealism among the Home Ministry’s junior and middle-level officials, most of whom studied in Europe during the 1910s (The State and Labor in Modern Japan [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987], 89–98). Ōyama Ikuo pointed out that the bureaucracy realized that traditional politics no longer worked. Its democratic concessions were a strategy to adapt to the world trend for its own profit and to use party politics as a tool.

31. Elise Tipton, The Japanese Police State: The Tokkō in Interwar Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), 19.

32. Umemori Naoyuki, “The Historical Context of the High Treason Incident: Govermentality and Colonialism,” in Japan and the High Treason Incident, ed. Masako Gavin and Ben Middleton (London: Routledge, 2013), 52–63.

33. Accounts of this arrest are not all clear. Japanese communists blamed Kondō for weakness of character, while Kondō denied the circumstances of his arrest, claiming that the police were expecting a Japanese Comintern envoy and easily tracked him down.

34. Inumaru Gi’ichi, Daiichiji kyōsantō shi no kenkyū: Zōho Nihon kyōsantō no sōritsu (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1993), 16; Kondō Eizō, Komuminterun no misshi (Tokyo: Bunka hyōronsha, 1949), 275.

35. Ōyama Ikuo exemplified the route of many frustrated members of the liberal intelligentsia who chose to join the proletarian party movement in 1924–25 (Duus, “Ōyama Ikuo,” 442–58). Beginning in 1920, the socialist Yamakawa Hitoshi appealed to the labor movement to abandon its support of the universal suffrage movement.

36. Richard H. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925: Its Origins and Significance,” Monumenta Nipponica 28, no. 3 (1973): 329.

37. Okudaira Yasuhiro, ed., Gendaishi shiryō 45: Chian ijihō (Tokyo: Misuzu Shobō, 1973), 65.

38. Max Ward, “The Problem of ‘Thought’: Crisis, National Essence and the Interwar Japanese State” (PhD diss., New York University, 2011), 52.

39. George A. Lensen, Japanese Recognition of the USSR (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1979), 125.

40. George M. Beckmann and Okubo Genji, The Japanese Communist Party, 1922–1945 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969), 68.

41. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925,” 331.

42. Christopher W. Szpilman, “The Politics of Cultural Conservatism: The National Foundation Society in the Struggle Against Foreign Ideas in Prewar Japan, 1918–1936” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1993), 88–89.

43. Szpilman, “Politics of Cultural Conservatism,” 114.

44. Akiyama Kiyoshi, Nihon no hangyaku shisō (Tokyo: Gendai Shichōsha, 1968), 148–52.

45. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925,” 333. In a twist of irony, it was Itō Hirobumi who gave the gun to Nanba Daisuke’s grandfather.

46. Kobayashi Yukio, Nisso seiji gaikōshi: Roshia kakumei to Chian ijihō (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1985), 320.

47. Kobayashi, Nisso seiji gaikōshi, 334–36.

48. Kobayashi, Nisso seiji gaikōshi, 186, 334.

49. Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 78–79.

50. Quoted in Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925,” 339.

51. Kokutai had been used officially twice before: in the 1873 Newspaper Ordinance, signifying something akin to national prestige (kokui); and in the Imperial Rescript on Education of 1890 (kokutai no seika) as an ethical index of the Confucian morals of filial piety and loyalty (Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 62n51).

52. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925,” 343.

53. Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 30.

54. Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 32.

55. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925,” 341.

56. Kobayashi, Nisso seiji gaikōshi, 330–31.

57. Kobayashi, Nisso seiji gaikōshi, 331. On opposition to the Peace Preservation Law, see Oguri Katsuya, “Chian ijihō hantai ron no shosō,” Hōgaku kenkyū 68, no. 1 (1995): 509–37.

58. The Universal Manhood Suffrage Act (Futsūsenkyohō) was passed in May 1925, one month after the Peace Preservation Law was issued. On the Universal Manhood Suffrage Bill and the later 1928 general election, see Thomas R. H. Havens, “Japan’s Enigmatic Election of 1928,” Modern Asian Studies 11, no. 4 (1977): 543–55.

59. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925,” 342.

60. See Kobayashi, Nisso seiji gaikōshi.

61. Cited in Okudaira, Gendaishi shiryō 45, 52.

62. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925,” 341.

63. Richard H. Mitchell, Janus-Faced Justice: Political Criminals in Imperial Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992), 78.

64. Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 67.

65. Japan Weekly Chronicle, March 1, 1928, 246.

66. Tipton, Japanese Police State, 20–24.

67. Quoted in Rodger Swearingen and Paul Langer, Red Flag in Japan: International Communism in Action, 1919–1951 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 31.

68. Tipton, Japanese Police State, 29.

69. Okudaira, Gendaishi shiryō 45, 120.

70. Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 122.

71. Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 77.

72. Byron K. Marshall, Capitalism and Nationalism in Prewar Japan: Ideology of the Business Elite, 1868–1941 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967).

73. Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 106–7.

74. Most suspects passed the “thought conversion” test and were released before being brought to trial, while only about 15 percent were placed within the prison or parole system (Ward, “Problem of ‘Thought,’ ” 91n109).

CHAPTER 5. ANARCHISM AGAINST BOLSHEVISM

1. During the same period, anarchist ideas were also the main ideology of Chinese radicalism, due largely to the influence of Japanese radicals. See Arif Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991). For the popularity of anarchism in global radicalism, see Ilham Khuri-Makdisi, The Eastern Mediterranean and the Making of Global Radicalism, 1860–1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010).

2. The labor history of the Taishō period is relatively well studied in English. See, for example, Stephen S. Large, Organized Workers and Socialist Politics in Interwar Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); and Andrew Gordon, Labor and Imperial Democracy in Prewar Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).

3. Ogino Fujio, Shoki shakaishugi shisōron (Tokyo: Fuji Shuppan, 1993); Matsuzawa Hiroaki, Nihon shakaishugi no shisō (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1973).

4. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 3–4.

5. For the only comprehensive study of Kōtoku Shūsui in English, see F. G. Notehelfer, Kōtoku Shūsui: Portrait of a Japanese Radical (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971). See also Hyman Kublin, “The Origins of the Japanese Socialist Tradition,” Journal of Politics 14, no. 2 (1952): 257–80; and Hyman Kublin, “Japanese Socialists and the Russo-Japanese War,” Journal of Modern History 22, 4 (1950): 322–39. For the early anti-imperialist movement in Japan, see Robert T. Tierney, Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kōtoku Shūsui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016).

6. Chushichi Tsuzuki, “Kotoku, Osugi, and Japanese Anarchism,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies 3, no. 1 (3) (1966): 35.

7. Tsuzuki, “Kotoku, Osugi, and Japanese Anarchism,” 35.

8. Tsuzuki, “Kotoku, Osugi, and Japanese Anarchism,” 34.

9. Miyashita Takichi, one of the dozen socialists executed in 1911, said during the trial: “when the emperor is attacked by a bomb and injured, he will bleed like us. I believed that this was the best way to destroy the superstition that the emperor Meiji was a descendent of kami” (quoted from Asukai Masamichi, “Roshia dai ichi ji kakumei to Kōtoku Shūsui,” in Taishōki no kyūshinteki jiyūshugi: Tōyō keizai shinpō wo chūshin toshite, ed. Inoue Kiyoshi and Watanabe Tōru (Tokyo: Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, 1972), 263.

10. The Akahata Incident refers to an incident in which, after a party to celebrate a fellow activist’s release from jail, a group of Kōtoku’s followers staged a demonstration by waving two flags inscribed with the words “anarchism” and “anarchism-communism.”

11. Umemori Naoyuki, “The Historical Context of the High Treason Incident: Governmentality and Colonialism,” in Japan and the High Treason Incident, ed. Masako Gavin and Ben Middleton (London: Routledge, 2013), 52–63.

12. F. G. Notehelfer, Kōtoku Shūsui, 203.

13. Mitsukawa Kametarō, “Kakumei jidai no tōrai,” Sankoku kanshō igo, ed. Yūichi Hasegawa (Tokyo: Ronsōsha, 2004), 104–7.

14. Arahata Kanson’s short story from 1913, “Defectors” (Tōhisha), reflects the atmosphere after the High Treason Incident.

15. It is quite remarkable that in the same period the Fraternal Society of Korean Students in Tokyo (Zai Nihon Tōkyō Chōsen ryūgakusei gakuyūkai) was able to publish (beginning in April 1914) the periodical Hak ji gwang (The light of learning), which advocated direct action by agrarian tenants as a way out of their poverty and hardship. It also published anarchism-inspired articles on mutual aid, transformation of the self, and women’s liberation. See Dongyoun Hwang, “Beyond Independence: The Korean Anarchist Press in China and Japan in the 1920s and 1930s,” Asian Studies Review 31, no. 1 (2007): 22n6.

16. Quoted in George M. Beckmann and Okubo Genji, The Japanese Communist Party (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969), 12.

17. For introductions to Lenin and the Bolshevik group in Japan, see Yamanouchi Akito, “Borisheviki bunken to shoki shakaishugi, Sakai, Takabatake, Yamakawa,” Shoki shakaishugi kenkyū 10 (September 1997): 101–15. As the prominent socialist Arahata Kanson wrote in his memoir: “I did not know about the character of the Russian Revolution or the Soviet organizations or parties that formed the new government. I knew the difference between the Socialist Revolutionary party and the Social Democratic party. But no one had heard about the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. There was almost no one who knew the names of Kerensky, Lenin, or Trotsky. The leaders of the Russian Social Democratic proletarian party whom we knew were Plekhanov, Zasulich, Deich, but strangely there was no information about Lenin’s party. Thus it is no wonder we were absolutely in a fog” (Arahata Kanson jiden [Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1975], 228). For the contemporary reaction to the February uprising, see Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Jihyō,” Shinshakai (April 1917).

18. For example, the same May 1917 Shinshakai issue featured an article about one of the founders of the Russian social revolutionary party, a former anarchist herself, Ekaterina Breshko-Breshkovskaya, “Grandmother of the Revolution” (Kakumei no obāsan), and about the famous Russian female narodnik Vera Figner, “Contemporary Woman Revolutionary Like a Beautiful Flower” (Senkenka no gotoki tonen no kakumei fujin). In August, Arahata Kanson published a poem dedicated to the narodniki.

19. Ronald G. Suny, The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 49–51.

20. Wada Haruki, Nikorai Raseru (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1973), 2:307.

21. Grant M. Adibekov and Wada Haruki, eds., VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 1917–1941 (Moscow: Rosspen, 2001), Doc. 270, 249–50.

22. The letter and resolution were published on August 14, 1918, in the newspaper CentroSibir and on September 27, 1918, in Pravda. See Adibekov and Wada, eds., VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 1917–1941, Doc. 270. For the activities of the Japanese socialists in 1917–1918, see Yamabe Kentarō and Takemura Eisuke, “Jūgatsu kakumei wa Nihon ni ataeta eikyō,” Zen’ei, no. 135 (December 1957): 124–48; and Yamanouchi Akito, Shoki Kominterun to zaigai Nihonjin shakai shugisha: Ekkyōsuru nettowāku (Kyoto: Mineruva Shobō, 2009).

23. Matsuzawa Hiroaki, Nihon shakaishugi no shisō (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1973), 148. In 1922, someone sent a letter to the wealthy residents of Kanagawa, Osaka, and Hyōgo prefectures titled “Declaration of Death Sentence” (Shikei wo senkoku suru), threatening the rich with the death penalty for their “exploitation of the proletariat.” See the full text in Kindai Nihon Shiryō Kenkyūkai, eds., Tokubetsu yōshisatsujin jōsei ippan: Zoku 2 (Tokyo: Meiji Bunken Shiryō Kankōkai, 1957), 156–57.

24. Kobayashi Hideo and Sasaki Rūji, “Fuyu no jidai kara no dakkyo: Jūgatsu kakumei to Nihon,” Rekishigaku kenkyū, no. 515 (April 1983): 35–38.

25. Umeda Toshihide, Shakai undō to shuppan bunka (Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobō, 1998).

26. For the list of new unions in 1919, see Akiyama Kiyoshi, Nihon no hangyaku shisō (Tokyo: Gendai Shichōsha, 1968), 78.

27. See Sakai Toshihiko’s articles in the May, June, and July 1917 issues of Shinshakai. In October, Sakai published his translation of Lenin’s “Russian Revolution,” based on Lenin’s lecture in Zurich, “The Task of Russian Social-Democratic Party in the Russian Revolution” (March 1917). Sakai’s translation, however, did not include the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

28. Ōsugi Sakae, “Museifushugisha no mita Roshia kakumei,” in Ōsugi Sakae zenshū. Roshia kakumei ron (Tokyo: Gendai Shichōsha, 1963), 7:3–4. Originally published in Rōdō undō (December 1922). Thomas Stanley argues that Ōsugi did not make a connection between World War I and the possibility of revolution and thus did not engage in any antiwar revolutionary activities. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a surprise for him (Stanley, Ōsugi Sakae: Anarchist in Taishō Japan: The Creativity of the Ego [Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1982], 196n8).

29. Kondō Kenji, Ichi museifushugisha no kaisō (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1965), 79.

30. Kondō Kenji, Ichi museifushugisha, 17–18; Yamakawa Hitoshi, Yamakawa Hitoshi jiden, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Yamakawa Shinsaku (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1961), 371; Ōsugi, “Dokusai to kakumei,” in Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:59–66. Originally published in Rōdō undō (October 1922).

31. It is true that socialists and anarchists were largely preoccupied with industrial workers, a trend that originated in Kōtoku’s time. For example, in 1931 Sakae Toshihiko published A History of the Japanese Socialist Movement (Nihon shakaishugi undō shi), in which he did not mention the Rice Riots.

32. Ōsugi, “Nihon ni okeru saikin no rōdō undō to shakaishugi undō,” quoted from Stanley, Ōsugi Sakae, 130.

33. Itō Noe, “Museifu no jijitsu,” in Itō Noe zenshū (Tokyo: Gakugei Shorin, 2000), 2:464.

34. Fujii Tadashi, Nihon shakaishugi dōmei no rekishiteki igi (Tokyo: Ōtsuki Shoten, 1978).

35. Yamanouchi Akito, “Katayama Sen: Zaibei Nihonjin shakaishugidan to shoki Kominterun,” Ōhara Shakai Mondai Kenkyūjo Zasshi, no. 544 (March 2004): 49.

36. Fujii, “Nihon shakaishugi dōmei,” 48–55.

37. Hwang, “Beyond Independence,” 12–13.

38. Yoshihiro Ishikawa, The Formation of the Chinese Communist Party (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).

39. Yamakawa, Yamakawa Hitoshi jiden, 389.

40. There is still little research on Ōsugi’s contacts with the Comintern. See Yamaizumi Susumu, “Ōsugi Sakae, Kominterunu ni sōgūsu,” Shoki shakaishugi kenkyū, no. 15 (2002): 86–121; and Yamanouchi, Shoki Kominterun.

41. Quoted from Kurokawa Iori, Teikoku ni kōsuru shakai undō: Daiichiji Nihon Kyosantō no shisō to undō (Tokyo: Yūshisha, 2014), 155–57.

42. Ōsugi Sakae, “Nihon no unmei,” Ōsugi Sakae shū: Kindai Nihon shisō taikei 20 (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1974), 256–57.

43. Asukai, “Roshia kakumei to Ōsugi Sakae,” Gendai Riron 4, no. 10 (1967): 34–42.

44. Stanley, Ōsugi Sakae, 137.

45. On Ōsugi’s reaction to the Kronstadt Rebellion, see Ōsugi, “Rōnō seifu wo toose,” Seishin (April 1921). The Kronstadt Rebellion of March 1921 was an anti-Bolshevik uprising of radical sailors and soldiers at the naval fortress of Kronstadt, who were dissatisfied with the economic policies of the Bolshevik government. After twelve days of fighting between the rebels and the Red Army, the uprising was crushed, leaving thousands dead. The Kronstadt Rebellion, it is said, prompted Lenin to initiate the NEP that relaxed state economic control.

46. Ōsugi Sakae, “Sovietto seifu, museifushugisha wo jūsatsu su,” in Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:22–28.

47. Ōsugi Sakae, “Museifu shugisha no mita Roshia kakumei,” Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:3–4.

48. Ōsugi Sakae, “Sonna koto wa dō date ii mondai janai ka. Rōnō Roshia shōnin mondai hihan,” Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:75–77.

49. On the women’s ana-boru ronsō, see Patricia E. Tsurumi, “Feminism and Anarchism in Japan: Takamure Itsue, 1894–1964,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 17, no. 2 (April–June 1985): 9–12. The Korean Black Wave Society also broke into anarchist and Bolshevik groups in December 1922. In July 1923, Bak criticized the Bolsheviks as a “new privileged class” exploiting and ruling the masses, rejected centralized union-led activities, and supported direct action strategy (Dongyoun Hwang, Anarchism in Korea: Independence, Transnationalism, and the Question of National Development, 1919–1984 [New York: State University of New York Press, 2016], chap. 3). The Suiheisha (a political organization fighting discrimination against outcasts) also had an ana-boru debate; for them, the question was: should they join the socialist movement and rely on its political activity or should outcasts liberate themselves?

50. The end of the syndicalist phase is usually attributed to the annual meeting of Sōdōmei in 1924, when the union took the new direction of “realistic socialism.” It took, however, until 1927 for the labor movement to decide on a course of action. In 1927–28, the left wing of the labor movement assumed leadership of the illegal Japanese Communist Party, while the right wing moved toward parliamentary political action and the strategy of accommodating the institutions of capital and the state (Matsuzawa, Nihon shakaishugi, 174; Gordon, Labour and Imperial Democracy, 183–84).

51. Already by 1922, many prominent anarchists had proclaimed the syndicalist tactics of industrial struggle to be a dead end. The most famous example was Arahata Kanson, the leader of the Kansai anarchist group who, after the failure of Italian strikes in 1921, shifted his support to communism. See Arahata Kanson, “Shindikarizumu no hatan,” Nihon rōdō shinbun, February 10, 1921.

52. For more on this, see Suman Gupta, Marxism, History, and Intellectuals: Toward a Reconceptualized Transformative Socialism (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2000).

53. Vladimir I. Lenin, “What Is to Be Done,” in Essential Works of Lenin (New York: Dover Publications, 2012), 74.

54. Lenin, “What Is to Be Done,” 82–83.

55. Ōsugi Sakae, “Naze shinkochu no kakumei o yōgo shinai no ka,” in Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:67–74.

56. Ōsugi Sakae, “Chishiki kaikyū ni atau,” Rōdō undō (January 1920).

57. Ōsugi Sakae, “Tettei shakai seisaku,” Rōdō undō (November 1919).

58. Ōsugi, “Rōdō undō no seishin,” Rōdō undō (October 1919).

59. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Tōmen no mondai,” Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Yamakawa Shinsaku (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1966), 4:408–416.

60. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Kaizō Nihon to musan kaikyū undō,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 5:77–82.

61. Inumaru Gi’ichi, Daiichiji Kyōsantō shi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1993).

62. Anna Geifman, Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia, 1894–1917 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 3.

63. Socialists had tried to smuggle the magazine into Japan, but the police seized it (John Crump, The Origins of Socialist Thought in Japan [London: St. Martin’s, 1983], 203).

64. Crump, Origins of Socialist Thought in Japan, 202–5.

65. Hagiwara Shintarō, Takao Heibē: Eikyū kakumei he no kishi (Tokyo: Riberutēru no Kai, 1972), 45–49.

66. Robert Stolz, Bad Water: Nature, Pollution, and Politics in Japan, 1870–1950 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014).

67. In 1915, Ōsugi was married to Sakai Toshihiko’s sister-in-law and had two lovers simultaneously. The next year, his wife left him, and one of his lovers stabbed him. Ōsugi stayed with his second lover, Itō Noe, until their death in 1923. There were also allegations that he had made off with the wife of another prominent anarchist, Tsuji Jun (Stanley, Ōsugi Sakae, chap. 7).

68. Hagiwara, Takao Heibē, 74–75.

69. Gregory James Kasza, The State and the Mass Media in Japan, 1918–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 40n19.

70. For more on the Morito Incident and the outrage it caused among university students and in the intellectual community as a whole, see Henry D. Smith, Japan’s First Student Radicals (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 63–65; and Richard H. Mitchell, “Japan’s Peace Preservation Law of 1925: Its Origins and Significance,” Monumenta Nipponica 28, no. 3 (1973): 324–25.

71. Hagiwara, Takao Heibē, 74–75.

72. Quoted in Beckmann and Okubo, Japanese Communist Party, 38.

73. Takao went from Shanghai via Pusan, where he met a Japanese prostitute from Harbin, who was gravely ill and wanted to travel back to Japan but had no money. Takao paid for her ticket and a doctor out of the Comintern’s funds, but on arrival at Tsushima she died (Hagiwara, Takao Heibē, 97–100).

74. Matsuo Takayoshi, “Wasurerareta kakumeika: Takao Heibē,” Shisō, no. 577 (1972): 96; Kurokawa, Teikoku ni kōsuru shakai undō, 173–77. The Comintern was very keen on establishing a printing shop in Chita and enrolling Asian radicals in the Communist University of Toilers of the East in Moscow (Adibekov and Wada, VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, Doc. 272, 254).

75. Beckmann and Okubo, Japanese Communist Party, 39.

76. Matsuo, “Takao Heibē,” 98–99.

77. Matsuo, “Takao Heibē,” 96–97.

78. Takao Heibē, “Kakumei ka shi ka,” in Tokubetsu Yōshisatsu Jōsei Ippan, 155–56.

79. “Zinoviev’s Analysis of the Eastern Situation and of the Tasks in the East (Second Sessions of the Congress of the Toilers of the Far East, January 23, 1922),” in Soviet Russia and the East, 1920–1927: A Documentary Survey, ed. Xenia J. Eudin and Robert C. North (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964), 224–25. From East Asia, twelve Japanese, fifty Koreans, and thirty Chinese participated in the Congress.

80. “Zinoviev’s Analysis of the Eastern Situation.”

81. Tsuzuki, “Kotoku, Osugi and Japanese Anarchism,” 42.

82. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Musan kaikyū undō no hōkō tenkan,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 4:336–45.

83. Hagiwara, Takao Heibē, 126. For the full text, see Takao, “Naze shinkōchū no kakumei wo yōgo shinainoka,” in Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:67–71.

84. Ōsugi Sakae, “Seishisei ni kotaeru,” in Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:71–74.

85. For Ōsugi’s reply to the accusations, see “Borushebiki yonju hachi teura omote,” Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 6:115–26; and “Kumiai teikokushugi,” Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 6:127–40.

86. Matsuo, “Takao Heibē,” 106–8.

87. Ōsugi Sakae, Nihon dasshutsuki (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971), 312.

88. Ōsugi Sakae, “Museifushugi shōgun: Nesutoro Mafuno,” in Ōsugi Sakae zenshū, 7:154–75.

89. Ōsugi, “Museifushugi shōgun,” 164.

90. Militancy increased on the leftist side as well. See Sheldon Garon, The State and Labor in Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 42, 71; and Gordon, Labor and Imperial Democracy, 144–48.

91. By 1930, Kokusuikai membership was estimated to be around 200,000, with branches all around the country; by 1932, Seigidan had 70,000 members; Yamato Minrōkai had 20,000; the Kinno Renmei had 3,000; and the Dai Nippon Sekka Bōshidan had 2,000. See Eiko Maruko Siniawer, Ruffians, Yakuza, Nationalists: The Violent Politics of Modern Japan, 1860–1960 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), 108–38.

92. Eiko Maruko Siniawer, “Liberalism Undone: Discourses on Political Violence in Interwar Japan,” Modern Asian Studies 45, no. 4 (2011): 981.

93. Among the activities of Sekka Bōshidan were disputes with anarchists, militant dispersal of labor strikes, public showings of the movie The Misery of Red Russia (which they borrowed from the Home Ministry), and demonstrations against the visit of the Soviet diplomat Ioffe. After the murder of Takao, the organization gradually disbanded. See Matsuo, “Takao Heibē,” 112.

94. Interestingly, contrary to the conventional view of yakuza as fervent nationalists, according to some memoirs, anarchist groups and some Japanese gangs grew very close in this period. Many Japanese criminal gangs, especially in the Kansai area, sympathized with the anarchists and assisted them in avenging Ōsugi’s and Takao’s murders.

95. Akiyama, Nihon no hangyaku shisō, 148–52.

96. Quoted from John Crump, Hatta Shūzō and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 186.

97. Crump, Hatta Shūzō and Pure Anarchism, 75–83.

98. John Crump, “Anarchist Communism and Leadership: The Case of Iwasa Sakutarō,” in Leaders and Leadership in Japan, ed. Ian Neary (London: Routledge, 1996), 166.

99. Crump, Hatta Shūzō and Pure Anarchism, 111–17.

100. Ikuhiko Hata and Alvin D. Coox, “Continental Expansion, 1905–1941,” in The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 6, ed. Peter Duus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 287.

101. The first global conference organized by the Profintern was the Conference of the Transport Workers of the Pacific, held in Canton in 1924 (Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 268).

102. Chairman Lozovsky’s speech in November 26, 1926 included the following: “we must pay particular attention at present to Japan; we must see that the workers’ movement of this highly developed capitalist country does not remain outside the world union movement” (Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 269).

103. Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 269–70.

104. Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 270.

105. Takamure Itsue, an anarchist and pathbreaking feminist historian, glorified Japanese expansion overseas and wrote extensively on imperial history. As Eiji Oguma pointed out, Takamure believed that ancient Japan offered examples of women’s liberation, nature unrestricted by artificial morals, and open freedom, and that the war meant the revival of these ideals. Ishikawa Sanshirō, another prominent anarchist and a close friend of Kōtoku Shūsui, admired The Record of Ancient Matters (Kojiki, compiled in 712) and the Kiki myths, which claimed that the founder of the imperial family had descended from the heavens in 660 BC. For more information, see Eiji Oguma, A Genealogy of “Japanese” Self-Images (Melbourne, VIC: Trans Pacific, 2002), introduction, chap. 10 (Ishikawa Sanshirō), chap. 11 (Takamure Itsue).

106. Crump, “Anarchist Communism and Leadership,” 168.

107. Kurokawa, Teikoku ni kōsuru shakai undō, 122–51.

CHAPTER 6. THE JAPANESE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE COMINTERN

1. Because the JCP was an illegal organization, historical sources are very scarce. The main primary sources in Japan are the interrogation reports from the 1930s, but not all of them have been made public. See Yamabe Kentarō, ed., Gendaishi shiryō, vol. 19–20 (Tokyo: Misuzu Shobō, 1967–68). Most of the documents concerning the prewar JCP are in the Comintern archives in the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) in Moscow, which until the early 1990s were classified. The only sources available to Japanese and English historians have been memoirs and police interrogations. Murata Yōichi, ed., Shiryōshū Kominterun to Nihon (Tokyo: Ōtsuki Shoten, 1986–88); and Murata Yōichi, ed., Shiryōshū shoki Nihon Kyōsantō to Kominterun (Tokyo: Ōtsuki Shoten, 1993) were the most important collections on the JCP, but they contained very few archival documents. The major breakthrough was the publication in 2001 of the newly declassified Comintern documents by Grant M. Adibekov and Wada Haruki, eds., VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 1917–1941 (Moscow: Rosspen, 2001). This chapter is based on this collection of primary documents. The Japanese translation of the Comintern documents was published as Tomita Takeshi and Wada Haruki, eds., Shiryōshū Kominterun to Nihon kyōsantō (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2014).

2. Recent studies of Comintern activities in Europe and China reveal that there, too, until 1927–28 foreign communists enjoyed a great degree of independence in decision making and retained critical perspectives on Comintern directives. See Kevin McDermot, “The History of the Comintern in Light of New Documents,” in International Communism and the Communist International, 1919–43, ed. Tim Rees and Andrew Thorpe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 31–40.

3. The classic studies on the establishment of the early JCP are Iwamura Toshio, Kominterun to Nihon kyōsantō no seiritsu (Tokyo: San'ichi Shobō, 1977); and Inumaru Gi’ichi, Daiichiji Kyōsantō shi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1993). The historian Itō Akira points out that Japanese historians of the Japanese communist movement mainly focus on how correctly the party members understood Marxism-Leninism. These historical studies are biased and judgmental, and therefore somewhat limited in their usefulness. Moreover, they largely rely on state police archives, which described the Japanese communists as a small, isolated group. This bias in the primary sources led historians to miss the broader significance of communism and communists in prewar Japanese society (Itō Akira, Tennōsei to shakaishugi [Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1988]).

4. Yamanouchi Akito, The Early Comintern and Japanese Socialists Residing Abroad: A Transnational Network (Kyoto: Mineruva Shobō, 2007).

5. I agree with the official history of the Japanese Communist Party that Katayama was solely responsible for the transmission of communist thought and movement via the United States to Japan, and that he had a decisive impact on the creation of the first JCP in 1922. See the memoirs of Watanabe Haruo, Katayama Sen to tomo ni (Tokyo: Wakōsha, 1955); and Kondō Eizō, Komuminterun no misshi (Tokyo: Bunka Hyōronsha, 1949). For the most recent study, see Yamanouchi Akito, “Katayama Sen: Zaibei Nihonjin shakaishugidan to shoki Kominterun,” Ōhara Shakai Mondai Kenkyūjo Zasshi 544 (March 2004): 38–68. In English, see Hyman Kublin, Asian Revolutionary: The Life of Sen Katayama (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964). The historian Asukai Masamichi, however, points out that Katayama did not have any influence on Japanese socialism and the Japanese communist movement and was in fact disliked by Japanese radicals because of his immigration to the United States in 1914 in the aftermath of the High Treason Incident, which they considered a dishonorable escape. Arahata Kanson was especially disappointed at Katayama’s flight to the United States. See Asukai Masamichi, “Roshia Kakumei to Ōsugi Sakae,” Gendai riron 4, no. 10 (1967): 36. During the 1920s, Japanese communists consistently warned the Comintern not to trust Katayama’s recommendations and assessments, which they argued were driven by his concern for his career within the Comintern organization in Moscow. See, for example, Docs. 305 and 299 in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia.

6. Yamanouchi Akito, “The Early Comintern in Amsterdam, New York and Mexico City,” Shien (March 2010): 99–139. Japanese communists in the United States managed to smuggle massive amounts of propaganda literature into Japan well into the 1940s. See Rodger Swearingen and Paul Langer, Red Flag in Japan: International Communism in Action, 1919–1951 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 59–66.

7. The Baku Congress formalized the Bolshevik commitment to the liberation of colonial peoples and marked the shift in the Comintern’s attention to the East. Acknowledging the importance of a national liberation struggle in the colonial world, the congress declared a revised slogan of the Communist Manifesto: “Proletarians and oppressed peoples of the world unite!” (John Riddell, ed., To See the Dawn: Baku, 1920—First Congress of the Peoples of the East [New York: Pathfinder, 1993]).

8. On Grigory Voitinsky, see Tony Saich, The Origins of the First United Front in China (Leiden: Brill, 1991). So successful was the Comintern Far Eastern Bureau in Shanghai as the “communications hub” of Asian revolutionaries, that it was dubbed the center of “a series of high-grade spy rings around the world” in the late 1920s and 1930s (Frederic Wakeman Jr., Policing Shanghai 1927–1937 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994], 146)

9. Martin C. Wilbur and Julie L. How, Missionaries of Revolution: Soviet Advisors and Nationalist China, 1920–1927 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 6–7; Heng-yu Kuo and M. L. Titarenko, eds., VKP(b), Komintern i Kitai, vol. 1 (Moscow: Buklet, 1994).

10. Quoted from Ishikawa Yoshihiro, The Formation of the Chinese Communist Party (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 76.

11. Yamakawa Hitoshi, Yamakawa Hitoshi jiden, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Yamakawa Shinsaku (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1961), 370.

12. Yamakawa and Sakai would later be blamed for their reluctant “unrevolutionary” attitude and labeled as cowards by Japanese Marxist historians. See, for example, Iwamura, Kominterun to Nihon kyōsantō no seiritsu, 78–105.

13. After his release, Kondō established the Enlightened People’s Communist Party (Gyōmin Kyōsantō) in August 1921 but was arrested again three months later, together with other members of his party and a Comintern agent by the name of B. Grey, who had just arrived in Japan from Shanghai with more funds. Sakai and Yamakawa were also arrested but were released soon after. Another Comintern envoy, a Chinese communist in Tokyo, was deported to Shanghai in December (Inumaru, Daiichiji Kyōsantō shi no kenkyū, 16; Kondō, Komintern no misshi, 275).

14. Coined by judicial authorities in the investigations following the mass arrests of March 1928 and April 1929, the term “first JCP” distinguished the earlier party from the reconstructed party of 1926 onward, but it was also adopted by the defendants themselves and has remained in common use. See Inumaru Gi’ichi, Daiichiji Kyōsantō shi no kenkyū, 501; and Sandra Wilson, “The Comintern and the Japanese Communist Party,” in International Communism and the Communist International, 1919–43, ed. Tim Rees and Andrew Thorpe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 305n27.

15. Matsuo Takayoshi, “Sōritsuki Nihon kyōsantō no tame no oboegaki,” Kyoto Daigaku Bungakubu Kenkyū kiyō, no. 19 (March 1979): 132–33.

16. “The Interrelation between the National Revolutionary Movement and the Revolutionary Proletarian Movement” (Safarov’s Statement at the Tenth Session of the Congress of the Toilers of the Far East, 27 January 1922), in Soviet Russia and the East, 1920–1927: A Documentary Survey, ed. Xenia J. Eudin and Robert C. North (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964), 229.

17. “Zinoviev’s Analysis of the Eastern Situation and of the Tasks in the East (Second Sessions of the Congress of the Toilers of the Far East, January 23, 1922),” in Soviet Russia and the East, 224–25. From East Asia, twelve Japanese, fifty Koreans, and thirty Chinese participated in the congress.

18. The original manifesto and program were discovered by the historian Katō Tetsurō in the Comintern archives in Moscow after the collapse of the USSR. Doc. 284, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia. The document was signed by Arahata and Sakai, but Katō has persuasively argued that the draft was written by Yamakawa. It is unknown how the Comintern reacted to this document.

19. Katō Tetsurō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (ue),” in Ōhara Shakai Mondai Kenkyū zasshi, no. 481 (1998): 45.

20. Katō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (ue),” 45.

21. Katō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (ue),” 45.

22. The Russian version of the manifesto is published in Docs. 254 and 274, VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 254–61.

23. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Hara naikaku no rōdō seisaku,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Yamakawa Shinsaku (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō), 1966, 2:159.

24. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Futsū senkyō to musan kaikyū no senjutsu,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Yamakawa Shinsaku (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō), 1967, 4:211–18.

25. Hence the striking absence of the peasantry question in the writings of Japanese socialists. Arahata Kanson later remarked that Meiji-era Japanese socialists were largely unfamiliar with the peasants’ problems.

26. Yamakawa, “Futsū senkyō to musan kaikyū no senjutsu.”

27. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Marukusu to Marukusushugi,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 2:216–24. Yamakawa Kikue expressed her support of the Soviet dictatorship in “Gendai seiji no byōhei,” Shakaishugi, no. 4 (January 1921).

28. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Shakaishugi kokka to rōdō kumiai,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Yamakawa Shinsaku (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1967), 3:188–99. One should remember that the Japanese knew nothing of the conspiratorial traditions of the prerevolutionary Bolshevik Party and Lenin’s natural authoritarianism. Besides, the transformation of the Bolshevik Party (not until 1922 were factions in the Russian Communist Party forbidden) and its subsequent policy and form of rule were still to come due to the ongoing Russian Civil War.

29. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Nihon ni okeru demokurashī no hattatsu to musan kaikyū no seiji undō,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, ed. Yamakawa Kikue and Yamakawa Shinsaku (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1968), 5:357–90.

30. Yamakawa Hitoshi, Shakaishugi no tachiba kara: Demokurashii no hanmon (Tokyo: Mita Shobō, 1919); Itō Akira, Tennōsei to shakaishugi, 115.

31. Itō Akira, Tennōsei to shakaishugi, 117; Yasukuni Ishiko, “Naze fashizumu ni yabureta ka, Yamakawa Hitoshi wo yomu,” Kagakuteki shakaishugi, no. 173 (September 2012): 88–93.

32. Conrad Brandt, “Lenin and Asian Nationalism: Sources of an Alliance,” in his Stalin’s Failure in China, 1924–1927 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 1–17.

33. The Fourth Congress was able to report some progress in non-Western countries: strikes in India in 1919–21, directed against the British; the formation of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921 and strikes in the newly created Chinese trade unions; the birth of the Indonesian Communist Party in 1920; attempts to establish a soviet government in the Gilan province of Persia; the Kemalist national revolution in Turkey; the growing anti-Japanese movement in Korea; unrest against the British in Egypt; and finally the revolutionary movement in Mongolia and the establishment of the Mongolian People’s Republic in 1921. See Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 148.

34. Moreover, Katayama Sen urged the JCP to support the universal suffrage movement and fight bureaucratism and militarism. See “The Program of the JCP by Katayama Sen,” Doc. 276, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 262–69. In “The Class War in Japan” (Communist Review 3, no. 8 [December 1922]), Voitinsky also called for a legal proletarian party and universal suffrage. He was concerned with the powerful anarchist movement in Japan which, he urged, must be won over. The full text is available at the Marxist Internet Archive (http://www.marxist.org). See also Doc. 282, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 278–80.

35. E. H. Carr, A History of Soviet Russia: The Bolshevik Revolution 1917–1923 (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966), 3:486.

36. Voitinsky, “Class War in Japan.”

37. Germaine A. Hoston, The State, Identity, and the National Question in China and Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 254. For a discussion of how Soviet experts have treated modern Japanese history, see Yulia Mikhailova, “Soviet-Japanese Studies on the Problem of the Meiji ishin and the Development of Capitalism in Japan,” in War, Revolution and Japan, ed. Ian Neary (London: Routledge, 2005), 33–38.

38. V. Lenin, “Backward Europe and Advanced Asia,” Pravda, May 18, 1913. The full text is available at the Marxist Internet Archive (http://www.marxist.org).

39. “Tasks of the Japanese Communists,” Doc. 278, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 271–75.

40. Carol Gluck, Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985).

41. On traditional historiography, see Germaine Hoston, Marxism and the Crisis of Development in Prewar Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 55–75.

42. “Report of the Executive Committee of the JCP about the Situation of the JCP” (March 25, 1923), Doc. 286, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 289–92; and “Report about the Emergency Meeting of the JCP,” Doc. 287, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 292–95.

43. Katō Tetsurō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (shita),” Ōhara Shakai Mondai Kenkyū zasshi, no. 482 (1998): 40.

44. Katō mentions the possibility that the JCP might not even have received Bukharin’s general address. In the police interrogations of Sakai Toshihiko after his arrest in May 1923, Sakai mentioned that he read the Bukharin address only in the Inprecor issue from November 1922. This, however, could have been an effort on Sakai’s part to conceal evidence of any direct contact between the JCP and the Comintern. Sakai, in fact, denied the existence of the JCP to the police and claimed that the socialists’ meetings were conducted to establish a legal proletarian party (Katō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (shita),” 49–51).

45. Here I consulted Aleksandr Iu. Vatlin’s discussion of the Congress in Komintern: Idei, resheniia, sud'by (Moscow: Rosspen, 2009), 210–13.

46. Zinoviev said, “At first parties must be created, and only then their programs” (quoted in Vatlin, Komintern, 213).

47. Docs. 286 and 287, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 292–95.

48. Katō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (shita),” 51.

49. Katō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (shita),” 51.

50. Bukharin may have consulted Grigory Voitinsky’s opinion as well. In December 1923, under the impact of the bloody aftermath of the great Kantō earthquake in September, Voitinsky published “Bourgeoisie and the Remnants of Feudalism in Japan” (Burzhuaziia i ostatki feodalizma v Iaponii, Novyi Vostok, no. 4, 1925), in which he stated that priority must be given to the struggle for abolishing the imperial system, which was, he argued, the root cause of Japanese nationalistic and imperialistic aggression. The publication of his article coincided with Bukharin’s preparation of his theses on Japan, published the next year in Germany. The Comintern headquarters in Moscow did not react to Voitinsky’s article.

51. Aono Suekichi, “Shinsai zengō nijū san,” Shakai kagaku (October 1928). For more information, see Katō, “1922-nen 9-gatsu no Nihon kyōsantō kōryō (shita),” 52.

52. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Kaizō Nihon to musan kaikyū undō,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 5:77–82.

53. Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 273.

54. Starting in 1919, Sakai, Arahata, and Yamakawa ran the Labor Union Study Group (Rōdō Kumiai Kenkyūkai), aimed at educating labor activists and progressive workers, although the authorities often shut it down. Also in 1919, Tokyo socialists opened Heimin University (People’s University), in which predominantly provincial students attended lectures on socialism and visited famous activists, professors, and artists. Heimin University was quite popular and created a nationwide network for socialist sympathizers, which would become the basis for the Socialist League in 1920–21. Arahata, Yamakawa, and Sakai wrote and published articles in workers’ newspapers and gave public lectures at factories around the country, which sometimes attracted up to five thousand people. See Watanabe, “Roshia Kakumei to Nihon rōdō undō,” Gendai no riron 4, no. 10 (1967), 21–33.

55. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Sōrengō no ketsuretsu,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 4:399–407; Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Musan kaikyū undō no hōko tenkan,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 4:336–45.

56. On the British anti-intervention movement, see John Saville, “Ernest Bevin and the Defense of the Russian Revolution,” in The Politics of Continuity: British Foreign Policy and the Labour Government, 1945–46 (London: Verso Books, 1993), 218–22.

57. There were three slogans: immediate implementation of an eight-hour workday, recognition of Russia, and establishment of civil rights. See Yamabe Kentarō and Takemura Eisuke, “Jūgatsu kakumei wa Nihon ni ataeta eikyō,” Zen’ei, no. 135 (December 1957): 147.

58. In 1918 and 1919, Takabatake Motoyuki and Yamakawa tried to publish their anti-intervention articles but were censored, and all the issues were confiscated. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Tairo kanshō wo yameyo,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 2:339–48. The only public expression of socialist opposition to the Siberian Intervention was Sakai Toshihiko’s article from 1920. See Sakai Toshihiko, “Shiberia teppei no yōkyū,” Shinshakai hyōron (June 1920); and Sakai Toshihiko, “L. F. kai no kūki,” Shinshakai hyōron (July–August 1920). Sakai described how unions and anarchists were against the Siberian Intervention.

59. Robert T. Tierney, Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kōtoku Shūsui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015).

60. “Program of the JCP,” Doc. 284, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 282–85. For the original English text see http://netizen.html.xdomain.jp/22program.html.

61. “Theses of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International on the Eastern Problem,” in Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 235–36.

62. Eudin and North, Soviet Russia and the East, 39–41. See also Joseph Mcquade, “The New Asia of Rash Behari Bose: India, Japan, and the Limits of the International, 1912–1945,” Journal of World History 27, no. 4 (2016): 641–67.

63. Nomura Kōichi, “Tairiku mondai no imēji to jittai,” in Kindai Nihon seiji shisōshi, ed. Matsumoto Sannosuke and Hashikawa Bunzō (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1970), 4:52–108; Okamoto Hiroshi, “Taishō shakaishugi no kokusai ninshiki to gaikō hihan. Yamakawa Hitoshi no baai,” in Nihon gaikō no kokusai ninshiki: Sono shiteki tenkai, no. 51 (1974): 87–108.

64. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Kōryō no mondai,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 6:250–69. In the same fashion, Yamakawa called on the anarchist-leaning Suiheisha outcasts movement to abandon its “instinctive” approach and create instead a centralized organization (“Musan kaikyū no seiji undō no shuppatsuten,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū 5:83–89).

65. See Yamakawa’s first publication on China “Shina no rōdōsha wa nan no tame ni tatakatte iruka,” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 1976, 6:174–78.

66. Voitinsky notified the Comintern about the disbandment of the JCP in his letter of May 1, 1924, from Shanghai. His report was based on his conversations with Arahata Kanson. See Doc. 303, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 333–41.

67. Doc. 305, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 342–43.

68. Defections from the first JCP due to disagreements with the Bolsheviks’ policy of dictatorship happened even prior to October 1922. For example, Hashiura Tokio, an old Meiji socialist and friend of Kōtoku Shūsui, could not accept the centralized organization of the JCP and, despite being one of its founders, very quickly quit the group. See Hashiura Tokio, Hashiura Tokio nikki (Tokyo: Ganshisha, 1983).

69. Rostislav Ul'ianovskii, Komintern i Vostok: Bor'ba za leninskuiu strategiiu i taktiku v natsional'no-osvoboditel'nom dvizhenii (Moscow: Nauka, 1969).

70. Swearingen and Langer, Red Flag in Japan; Robert A. Scalapino, The Japanese Communist Movement, 1920–1966 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968).

71. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Nihon ni okeru demokurashii no hattatsu to musan kaikyū no seiji undō” in Yamakawa Hitoshi zenshū, 5:357–90.

72. At the Fifth Congress, Katayama Sen also criticized the actions of the Japanese old socialists and refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of their decision. See also Sano Manabu’s letter to Voitinsky, in which he criticizes Katayama for his lack of understanding of Japanese conditions. Sano in his letter strongly urged Voitinsky to ignore Katayama’s suggestions. For these documents, see Docs. 299, 302, and 305, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia.

73. The authors of the Shanghai Theses were Voitinsky, Sanō Manabu, and other members of the Japanese Communist Bureau in Vladivostok. See Doc. 303, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 333–341. Katō Tetsurō argues that the Japanese were not included in the writing of the theses, and Voitinsky was the sole author. For the text, see George M. Beckmann and Genji Okubo, The Japanese Communist Party, 1922–1945 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969), 283–92.

74. Doc. 307, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 345–48.

75. Scalapino, Japanese Communist Movement, 21.

76. Yanson’s report to the Eastern Bureau of the Comintern, “Our Following Organizational Steps in Japan” (July 3, 1925), Doc. 311, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 355–60. The report was written in Russian and sent to Zinoviev via Voitinsky. The report had an accompanying confidential letter to Voitinsky, in which Yanson confided that an illegal JCP would surely end in fiasco and that legal, not overtly communist activities should be prioritized. Yanson was transferred to Shanghai in 1927 to replace Voitinsky. According to Japanese police reports, Yanson continued to sponsor Japanese labor union radicals even after his transfer. See Doc. 310, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 354–55.

77. Doc. 311, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 355–60.

78. Zinoviev’s speech about the Japanese question at the ECCI presidium meeting from September 8, 1925, is Doc. 313, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 361–63. Original in German.

79. Yamakawa’s report to the ECCI, “Present Stage of Development of Our Movement” (March 1927), which he passed via Yanson, is Doc. 327, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 394–406. The report was written in Japanese and translated into English in June 1927.

80. Ann Waswo, “The Transformation of Rural Society, 1900–1950,” in The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 6, ed. Peter Duus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 593–605.

81. Beckmann and Okubo, Japanese Communist Party, 79–105.

82. Letter from the Japanese communists to N. I. Bukharin: “Dear Comrade Bukharin! Knowing well that you are very busy with many important matters to attend, nevertheless we on the behalf of the CP of Japan kindly ask you to write the Political Theses on the Japanese question. We make this comradely request because the Theses must lay down the very foundation upon which the CP of Japan shall be established. And, second, because the Japanese question is not only very complicated but also closely related to the Chinese question. With communist greetings, Moscow, June 10, 1927. Sen Katayama, Seki, Y. Kawasaki, Asano, Akita, Chiba, Mori, Kuroki, Yamane.” See Doc. 333, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 435.

83. Yamakawa pointed out that Japanese workers’ nationalism and prejudices against Korean workers enabled Japanese colonialism in Korea. He appealed to Japanese workers to abandon their prejudices and nationalism and embrace the Koreans as their brothers, because Japanese, Korean, and Chinese masses were all victims of the Japanese capitalist imperialist state. At the same time, however, he appealed to Korean workers in Japan to join the JCP as a more progressive political organization. See Kurokawa Iori, Teikoku ni kōsuru shakai undō: Daiichiji Nihon Kyosantō no shisō to undō (Tokyo: Yūshisha, 2014), 130.

84. “Theses of the ECCI on Japan.” Adopted on July 15, 1927. The theses were written in Russian (see Doc. 338, in VKP[b], Komintern i Iaponiia, 450–61) but were published in a faulty English translation in International Press Correspondence (no. 2, 1928). See also Beckmann and Okubo, Japanese Communist Party, 119–25.

85. “Bukharin’s Report at the Meeting of the Presidium of the ECCI on Japan Question,” Moscow, July 15, 1927, Doc. 335, in VKP(b), Komintern i Iaponiia, 436–48. The text is in German.

86. “Bukharin’s Report at the Meeting of the Presidium of the ECCI on Japan Question.”

87. In the 1930s, Yamakawa consciously distanced himself from the JCP. In his “Waga kuni ni okeru Marukushizumu no hattatsu” (Kaizō, March 1933), he described the economists Kawakami Hajime and Kushida Tamizō as the central figures of Japanese Marxism until 1924, without even mentioning the early JCP. In his postwar memoirs, Yamakawa maintained that he had minimal connections with the first JCP and no contact with the Comintern after the party’s dissolution in 1924. These statements, especially Yamakawa’s claim that he never participated in the activities of the first JCP, angered Arahata, who rebuked Yamakawa in his own memoirs (Arahata Kanson jiden [Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1975], 2:137–41).

88. The 1927 Theses stated, for example, that the Shakai minshūtō tries “to poison the masses with opportunism, nationalism, and imperialism” (Beckmann and Okubo, Japanese Communist Party, 303).

89. Kevin McDermott and Jeremy Agnew, The Comintern: A History of International Communism from Lenin to Stalin (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), 41–80.

90. Wilson, “Comintern and the Japanese Communist Party,” 285–86, 290.

91. Tatiana Linkhoeva, “New Revolutionary Agenda: The Interwar Japanese Left on the ‘Chinese Revolution,’ ” Cross-Currents 6, no. 2 (2017): 83–104.

CHAPTER 7. NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND SOVIET COMMUNISM

1. Reto Hofmann, The Fascist Effect: Japan and Italy, 1915–1952 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015).

2. Zeev Sternhell, “The ‘Anti-Materialist’ Revision of Marxism as an Aspect of the Rise of Fascist Ideology,” Journal of Contemporary History 22, no. 3 (1987): 379–400.

3. Sternhell, “ ‘Anti-Materialist’ Revision of Marxism,” 382.

4. Gregory Kasza, “Fascism from Below?: A Comparative Perspective on the Japanese Right, 1931–1936,” Journal of Contemporary History 19, no. 4 (1984): 607–30.

5. Gregory J. Kasza, The State and the Mass Media in Japan, 1918–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Janis Mimura, Planning for Empire: Reform Bureaucrats and the Japanese Wartime State (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011).

6. The most authoritative study on Takabatake is Tanaka Masato’s Takabatake Motoyuki: Nihon no kokka shakaishugi (Tokyo: Gendai Hyōronsha, 1978). See also, Hashikawa Bunzō, “Kokka shakaishugi no hassō yōshiki: Kita Ikki, Takabatake Motoyuki wo chūshin ni,” in Nihon seiji gakkai nenpō seijigaku (December 1968), 104–38; Satō Masaru, Takabatake Motoyuki no bōrei: aru kokka shakaishugisha no kikenna shisō (Tokyo: Shinchōsha, 2018). In English, see Germaine A. Hoston, “Marxism and National Socialism in Taishō Japan: The Thought of Takabatake Motoyuki,” Journal of Asian Studies 44, no. 1 (1984): 43–64.

7. For Yamaji, the task of modern socialism was to ensure a strong, fair state in which “government officials take care of morals and food for the people,” and the values of community and equality would be upheld. Yamaji was a widely known public historian, a good friend of the socialist Sakai Toshihiko, and a self-proclaimed socialist. See Peter Duus, “Whig History, Japanese Style: The Min’yūsha Historians and the Meiji Restoration,” Journal of Asian Studies 33, no. 3 (1974): 415–36.

8. Yushi Ito, Yamaji Aizan and His Time: Nationalism and Debating Japanese History (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 124–34.

9. Takabatake’s militant position got him into trouble; a year later, he was imprisoned for two months for participating in an anarchist demonstration.

10. Yamakawa Hitoshi, “Bōfū no mae,” Shinshakai (December 1917).

11. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Tachiba no tachiba kara no seiji undō to keizai undō,” Shinshakai (May 1918).

12. In “State and Revolution,” written in the summer of 1917, Lenin emphasized that a proletarian semistate would serve as a short-term transition between the collapse of capitalism and the onset of communism.

13. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Kagekishugi no tachiba wo ronzu,” Kokka shakaishugi, no. 4 (August 1919).

14. Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 158.

15. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Kagekiha no tachiba wo ronzu,” Kokka shakaishugi, no. 4 (August 1919).

16. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Kokka shakaishugi de yuku,” Kaizō (March 1923).

17. Arima Manabu, “Takabatake Motoyuki to kokka shakaishugi ha no dōkō,” Shigaku zasshi 83, no. 10 (1974): 9–12.

18. Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 131.

19. Takabatake, “Kokka shakaishugi no irowake,” Kokka shakaishugi (April 1, 1919). Henry M. Hyndman (1842–1921) was a leading figure of British socialism, one of the founders of the Social Democratic Federation in 1884 and the British Socialist Party in 1911. In 1916, he formed the National Socialist Party, which placed the interests of British workers above those of the international proletariat, supported British involvement in World War I, and opposed labor unions. After the October Revolution, Hyndman supported the Foreign Intervention, arguing that Russia was not ready for socialism and that attempts to build a socialist system in a vast, backward empire would result in failure and reactionism. See Henry Hyndman, The Evolution of Revolution (London: Hyndman Literary Trust, 1920), chap. 23, “Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution.”

20. Their journal was also named Kokka shakaishugi, and the title was translated into English as The National Socialism. See Takabatake Motoyuki, “Shakaishugi kenkyū mondai,” Kokka shakaishugi (June 1919).

21. James Gregor, Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism: Chapters in the Intellectual History of Radicalism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), 161–88.

22. Gregor, Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism, 162–63.

23. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Shōhisha hon’i no taishū undō,” Genmetsusha no shakaikan (Tokyo: Daitōkaku, 1923).

24. Arima, “Takabatake Motoyuki to kokka shakaishugi ha no dōkō.”

25. Germaine A. Hoston, “Tenkō: Marxism & the National Question in Prewar Japan,” Polity 16, no. 1 (1983): 58.

26. Hoston, “Marxism and National Socialism in Taishō Japan,” 46.

27. See Takabatake Motoyuki, “Nihon no kazoku seidō,” and “Gendai shisōkai no keikō,” both in his Jiko wo kataru (Tokyo: Jinbunkai Shuppanbu, 1928), 12–34, and 35–47, respectively.

28. Takabatake Motoyuki, Nihon shakaishugi taigi (Tokyo: Nihon Shakaishugi Kenkyūjō, 1932), 282.

29. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Marukusu mujun to Kawakami Hajime no mujun,” Kaihō (November 1921).

30. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Mussorini wa hi ‘kōshitsu chūshin shugisha,” Yomiuri shinbun (December 1927). For a more detailed discussion, see Fuke Takahiro, Nihon Fashizumu ronsō: Taisen zen’ya no shisōkatachi (Tokyo: Kawade Shobō, 2012), 228–39.

31. Itō Akira, Tennōseishugi to shakaishugi (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1988), 57–62.

32. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Kenkoku sai,” in Jiko wo kataru, 139–141.

33. As an example of Japan’s manipulation by big business, Takabatake referred to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles (1919) and the Washington Naval Treaty (1922), which were signed (as the rightist commentators claimed) for the benefit of Anglo-American imperialism.

34. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Kokka shakaishugi no seisaku,” in his Hihan Marukusushugi (Tokyo: Nihon Hyōronsha, 1929), 213–26.

35. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Rōdōsha ni kokka arashimeyo,” Kokka shakaishugi, no. 1 (April 1919).

36. Takabatake, “Demokurashi shinri,” in Jiko wo kataru, 169–70.

37. Hashikawa Bunzō, “Kokka shakaishugi no hassō yōshiki; Kita Ikki, Takabatake Motoyuki wo chūshin ni”; Christopher W. Szpilman, “Kita Ikki and the Politics of Coercion,” Modern Asian Studies 36, no. 2 (2002): 467–90.

38. Takabatake’s Marukusu shihon ron kaisetsu, which was considered an accurate introduction to the first volume of Marx’s Das Kapital, was published in May 1919. The first printing of twenty thousand copies quickly sold out. Takabatake’s translation of Das Kapital’s volume 1 was completed by 1924. In 1925–26, a new edition came out, followed by another edition in 1927–28 by the Kaizōsha publishing company. The 1928 edition was twelve times cheaper than the first edition. In total, over ten printings were issued (Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 169). In addition, Takabatake published extensively on Marxist theory: he contributed to the famous Lectures on Social Problems (Shakai mondai kōza, 1927), authored 12 Lectures on Marxism (Marukusu jūni kō, 1926) and Dictionary of Social Problems (Shakai mondai jiten, 1925), and coauthored the New Introduction to Social Philosophy (Shakai tetsugaku shingakusetsu taikei, 1928), to name a few (Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 236–37).

39. The Rōsōkai group lacked a clear program but attracted to its meetings a wide range of influential people—from the nationalist writer Ōzaki Shirō, the socialist feminist Yamakawa Kikue (wife of Yamakawa Hitoshi), and Sakai Toshihiko to military officers, members of parliament, and university students and professors. See Takabatake Motoyuki, “Rōsōkai to Reimeikai,” Shinshakai (February 1919); and Fuke Takahiro, Senkanki Nihon no shakai shisō: “Chōkokka” he no furontia (Kyoto: Jinbun Shoin, 2010), chapter 4, “Rōsōkai no ‘kyōdō.”

40. Mitsukawa Kametarō, Sangoku kanshō igo (Tokyo: Ronsōsha, 2004), 175–78.

41. Under the provisions of antisocialist legislation, almost every issue of National Socialism was banned by the police, and Takabatake’s public lectures were often cancelled. One meeting disbanded when a student from the audience asked why he was supposed to be proud of the Japanese eternal imperial line when in fact he did not believe in it (Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 161).

42. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Musan aikoku tō no kichō,” in Hihan marukusushugi, 309–10; Takabatake Motoyuki, “Taishū no shinri,” in Hihan marukusushugi, 153–62.

43. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Nichibei mondai hihan,” Shūkan Nihon 6 (April 1924).

44. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Kageki undō torishimari hōan: Seitō katsu yūkō,” Kaihō (April 1922).

45. Takabatake, “Kageki undō torishimari hōan.” In 1927, General Tanaka Gi’ichi’s cabinet revised the Peace Preservation Law and established the death penalty as punishment for subversive activities. Over the years, nearly seventy thousand people were arrested under this law.

46. Mizuno Masao, “Keikenteki genjitsushugi no fashizumu he no keikō,” Marukusushugi (November 1926), was the first article to call Takabatake a fascist. Interestingly, the conservative scholar Uesugi Shinkichi, the liberal Yoshino Sakuzō, and the anarchists gladly attended the celebration (Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 235–36).

47. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Henkenteki intānashonarizumu,” in Hihan marukusushugi, 246–47.

48. The reactions of Western observers were similar to those of the Japanese. The American scholar Gerard Friters wrote in 1927: “Soviet Imperialism has achieved a disguised annexation of Mongolia… . The imperialistic genius of Soviet Russia has certainly shown a greater ability in the treatment of the Mongols than Tsarist Russia.” Quoted in Peter S. H. Tang, Russian and Soviet Policy in Manchuria and Outer Mongolia, 1911–1931 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1959), 371.

49. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Musan seitō kinshi yodan” (1925), in Jiko wo kataru, 90–101.

50. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Rōnō teikokushugi no kyokutō shinshutsu,” Kaizō (April 1927).

51. Takabatake mentioned Sun Yat-sen’s assistant, Liao Zhongkai, who had intimate connections with the Comintern and met the Soviet diplomat Adolf Ioffe while he was at the Japanese resort at Atami. Takabatake suggested that, on the Comintern’s orders, Liao worked on infiltrating the Guomindang with communists.

52. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Teikokushugi no shinkyu,” Shunjū (December 1927).

53. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Teikokushugi no hatten,” in Hihan marukusushugi, 261–80. For Kita Ikki’s position, see George M. Wilson, Radical Nationalist in Japan: Kita Ikki, 1883–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 53–57.

54. Oikawa Eijiro, “The Relation between National Socialism and Social Democracy in the Formation of the International Policy of the Shakai Taishūtō,” in Nationalism and Internationalism in Imperial Japan: Autonomy, Asian Brotherhood, or World Citizenship?, ed. Dick Stegewerns (London: Routledge, 2003), 213.

55. Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 199–204. See the Kaizō special issue of March 1923 on the Keirin Gakumei. Few historians in English have mentioned the organization, as they have tended to see it as an unnatural alliance doomed from the start. See, for example, Richard Storry, The Double Patriots: A Study of Japanese Nationalism (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 320–21; and Ivan Morris, Nationalism and the Right Wing in Japan: A Study of Post-War Trends (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974).

56. Fuke, Senkanki Nihon no shakai shisō, 197.

57. Uesugi Shinkichi, “Kokutai no seika wo hatsuyo,” Kaizō (March 1923).

58. Cited in Kasza, State and the Mass Media in Japan, 20.

59. Takabatake, “Kokka shakaishugi no seisaku.” Ideas of total mobilization were already in the air by that time. The mass mobilization in Japan started during the Russo-Japanese War, when over one million men were drafted, followed by the establishment of the Imperial Military Reservist Association in 1910. Although army officials urged civil mobilization in Japan after observing World War I in Europe, little was done during the 1920s.

60. Takabatake, “Kokka shakaishugi de yuku.”

61. Walter Skya, Japan’s Holy War: The Ideology of Radical Shinto Ultranationalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009), 161–62.

62. The first Japanese Marxist analysis of Japanese fascism was written by Sakai Toshihiko and Arahata Kanson as “Fascism in Japan” in the Profintern organ Krasnyi internatsional profsoiuzov in July 1923. For more information, see Fuke Takahiro, “Sen kyūhyaku nijū nen shoki Nihon ni okeru Itaria fashizumu kan no kōsatsu,” Bunmei Kōzō ron, no. 3 (Kyoto University, 2007), 8. See also Yoshimi Yoshiaki, “Senzen ni okeru Nihon fashizumu kan no hensen,” Rekishigaku kenkyū, no. 451 (December 1977), 20–32.

63. O. Tanin (real name O. S. Tarkhanov) and E. Yohan (E. Yolk), Militarism and Fascism in Japan (New York: International Publishers, 1934), 99–106, 272–73. Both were purged at the end of the 1930s and died in prison.

64. Uesugi went on to create the Shichishō (Seven Lives Society) in 1925 to combat liberal-democratic thought. Some of its members later joined the Ketsumeidan terrorist association, which murdered former Minister of Finance Inoue Junnosuke in February 1932, and the director of the Mitsui holding company Dan Takuma in March 1932.

65. Mogi Kyūhei, Takabatake’s former disciple, became the chief editor and manager of the Taikakai publishing organ before following the Japanese army to China after the invasion of 1927. See Fuke Takahiro, “Sen kyūhyaku nijū nendai kōki ni okeru Takabatake Motoyuki no Itaria fashizumu ron ni tsuite,” in Kirisutokyō shakai mondai kenkyū, no. 56 (2008), 70.

66. Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 204.

67. Fuke, Senkanki Nihon no shakai shisō, 216.

68. Takabatake Motoyuki, “Musan aikoku tō no kichō,” in Hihan marukusushugi, 303–14.

69. Yoshihisa Nakamura and Ryōichi Tobe, “The Imperial Japanese Army and Politics,” Armed Forces and Society 14, no. 4 (1988): 520.

70. Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 242–78; William D. Wray, “Asō Hisashi and the Search for Renovation in the 1930s,” in Papers on Japan, vol. 5 (Cambridge, MA: East Asia Research Center, Harvard University, 1970).

71. Elise K. Tipton, The Japanese Police State: The Tokkō in Interwar Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), 129.

72. Yonetani Masafumi, “Senjiki Nihon no shakai shisō: Gendaika to senji henkaku,” Shisō 882 (December 1997), 69–120.

73. Oikawa, “Relation between National Socialism and Social Democracy,” 200. On the activities of the national socialist group in the 1930s, see Fuke Takahiro, “Sen kyūhyaku sanjū nendai shoki Nihon ni okeru kokka shakaishugi undō: sono Nachi tōron to ‘fashizumu’ ron ni shōten wo atete,” Shigaku zasshi, no. 118 (August 2009): 1485–508.

74. Mimura, Planning for Empire.

75. Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 285.

76. Oikawa, “Relation between National Socialism and Social Democracy,” 201–2.

77. Wilson, Radical Nationalist in Japan, 104.

78. Tanaka, Takabatake Motoyuki, 283.

79. See, for example, Kokka shakaishugi, October 1931 and January 1933.

80. William Miles Fletcher, Search for a New Order : Intellectuals and Fascism in Prewar Japan (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982).

81. Yoshitake Oka, Konoe Fumimaro: A Political Biography (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1983), 107.

82. Oka, Konoe Fumimaro, 114. The communist-inspired notion of planned economy was ultimately used by the military and reform bureaucrats during the war mobilization of the 1930s–40s (Bai Gao, Economic Ideology and Japanese Industrial Policy: Developmentalism from 1931 to 1965 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997]).

CONCLUSION

1. Hattori Ryūji, Higashi Ajia kokusai kankyō no hendō to Nihon gaikō, 1918–1931 (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 2001), 149–52; David J. Lu, Agony of Choice: Matsuoka Yōsuke and the Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1880–1946 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002), 46–49.

2. Edward J. Drea, Japan’s Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall, 1853–1945 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009), 163–66.

3. Tomita Takeshi, Senkanki no Nisso kankei: 1917–1937 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2010), 268–69.

4. Ugaki Kazushige, Ugaki nikki (Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1956), 48–49; Sakai Tetsuya, Taishō demokurashī taisei no hōkai: Naisei to gaikō (Tokyo: Tokyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992), 174.

5. In contrast, central army headquarters in Tokyo did not plan any military action north of the South Manchurian Railway, since intrusion into a region considered to be within the Russian sphere of influence might provoke a Soviet military response. See Mark R. Peattie, Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s Confrontation with the West (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 97–100.

6. George A. Lensen, The Damned Inheritance: The Soviet Union and the Manchurian Crises, 1924–1935 (Tallahassee, FL: Diplomatic Press, 1974), 480–83.

7. Chong-Sik Lee, Revolutionary Struggle in Manchuria: Chinese Communism and Soviet Interest 1922–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 96.

8. Ian Nish, Japanese Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002), 109.

9. Vassili Molodiakov, “The Tripartite Pact and the Soviet Union,” Proceedings of the International Forum on War History (National Institute of Defense Studies, 2010), 146. http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/event/forum/e2010.html.

10. Jonathan Haslam, The Soviet Union and the Threat from the East, 1933–1941: Moscow, Tokyo and the Prelude to the Pacific War (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1992).

11. Yukiko Koshiro, Imperial Eclipse: Japan’s Strategic Thinking about Continental Asia before August 1945 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013), 17.

12. Hattori, Higashi Ajia kokusai kankyō no hendō to Nihon gaikō, 1918–1931, 230.

13. Lu, Agony of Choice, 199–205.

14. Koshiro, Imperial Eclipse, 39–40.

15. On the disintegration of Meiji ideological orthodoxy, see Tetsuo Najita, Japan: The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 102–48.

Previous Chapter

Conclusion

Next Chapter

Bibliography

Additional Information

ISBN
9781501748103
Related ISBN
9781501748080
MARC Record
OCLC
1110161709
Pages
221-256
Launched on MUSE
2020-02-11
Language
English
Open Access
Yes
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.