Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Judith Fröhlich
(University of Zurich)
Tatiana Linkhoeva (New York University)
Andreas Renner (Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Sheldon Garon
(Princeton University)
- Stream:
- History
- Location:
- Bloco 1, Piso 0, Sala 0.06
- Sessions:
- Friday 1 September, -, -
Time zone: Europe/Lisbon
Short Abstract:
By exploring the exchange of political thought and concepts of international law and Empire between Japan and Northeast Asia in the early twentieth century, our panel addresses broader issues of the possibilities and limits, faced by Japan historians, in writing global history.
Long Abstract:
Global history has attracted increasing attention over the past two decades. However, global historians often fail to overcome a Eurocentric perspective and have yet to formulate a comprehensive program on how to write global history, except to call for tackling big questions with big implications (Guldi and Armitage, History Manifesto). Nevertheless, global history offers several new perspectives for analyzing (1) the transnational connectedness of national policies, including welfare, war propaganda and prohibition; (2) intellectual exchange of religious or political thought beyond national borders; and (3) power relations of race and class, arising from global interactions. Specifically, with reference to Japan, global history helps us to deconstruct paradigms of Japan's allegedly unique path to modernization.
In this panel, we explore how more globally minded approaches to Japanese history would contribute to global history itself. Our focus is on the historical relations between Japan and Northeast Asia in the early twentieth century. Session 1 explores the circulation of political ideas between Japan and North East Asia, including Anarchism, Bolshevism, Right-Wing Radicalism, Pan-Asianism, Eurasianism and Turkism, and their meaning as pan-movements in the Japanese Empire (Tatiana Linkhoeva, Christopher W. A. Szpilman, Saito Shohei). Session 2 analyzes the shifts in concepts of international law and Empire specifically during wartime, including the First World War, the Siberian Intervention and the Second World War (Rotem Kowner, Sven Saaler, Daniel Hedinger). By presenting specific case studies, we address the following questions: What do the historical relations between Japan and North East Asia, i.e. peripheral regions in the case of Manchuria and a 'non-western' power in the case of Russia, tell us about concepts of Empire, the nation-state and modernity? What new perspectives does the focus on a region, geopolitically remote from the West, give us on Japan's development in the early twentieth century? And finally, what are the possibilities and limits, faced by Japan historians, in writing global history.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 1 September, 2017, -Paper short abstract:
This paper explores an understudied topic of the relationship between Taishō anarchism and Russian communism. It demonstrates how with the support of Russian Bolsheviks, Japanese anarchism once again became a crucial part of Asia-wide radical networks.
Paper long abstract:
The Russian Revolution of 1917, communist ideology and Russian anarchism had a great impact on the intellectual, political, and cultural landscape of interwar Japan, and yet this topic has been largely understudied. Historians have neglected Japanese supporters of anarchism, an exception being the Japanese anarchist Ōsugi Sakae (1885-1923). This paper argues that so-called Taishō anarchism, while rooted in the substantial Japanese socialist tradition, was largely developed in conversation with Russian Bolshevism and that its attitude towards the Russian Revolution was not straightforwardly antagonistic, as studies of Ōsugi Sakae have suggested, but rather more complex and nuanced. Anarchist Takao Heibē (1895-1923) represents another current of Japanese anarchism, which wholeheartedly supported Russian Bolshevism and cultivated regional networks across East Asia by forming ties between fellow Japanese, Russian, Korean, and Chinese socialist radicals. By exploring Takao's convictions and networks, this paper demonstrates that Taishō anarchism developed as a transnational movement, its most important feature being Asia-wide resistance to Japanese imperialism inspired by the Russian Revolution.
Paper short abstract:
The presentation focuses on the rise of totalitarian and radical reformist ideology in Japan after WWI. By examining the writings of some influential men, it traces some causes of the collapse of the party cabinets and the rise of militarism that put Japan on a collision course with the US.
Paper long abstract:
The presentation focuses on the rise of totalitarian and radical reformist ideology in Japan in the aftermath of WWI by discussing the writings of a number of at the time highly influential academics, writers and journalists, such as Imai Tokio, Itô Masanori, Kita Reikichi, Wakamiya Unosuke, Nagai Hôsuke, and Sugimori Kôjirô.
The rise of this new ideology is directly related to the effects of the war upon Japan. First, arguments for radical reforms made by the above individuals were based on their observations of the war in Europe and, in particular, of the German efforts to achieve total mobilization, Second, the rapid decline of Western power and prestige in East Asia inspired a new confidence in Japan's ability to expand onto the Asian continent, while calling into question the Japanese government's policy of cooperation with the Western powers. Third, the war generated a profound crisis of values due to the collapse of Imperial Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary, the emergence of the US as a world power, and the birth of a communist state in Russia. This crisis was further exacerbated by the rise of pacifism, the principle of national self-determination and the spread of liberal ideas within Japan.
The articles the above mentioned men produced shaped public opinion that was hostile to liberalism, viewed the League of Nations as an Anglo-Saxon trick, and supported militarism and expansionary policies. With their writings, I will conclude, they made a significant contribution to the collapse of the party cabinets and to the termination of Japan's cooperation with the Anglo-Saxons that put Japan on a collision course with the US.
Paper short abstract:
This paper compares the importance of Eurasianism and Russian Turkism in the Japanese Empire in the 1930s and 1940s.
Paper long abstract:
In the 1920s, Eurasianism, positing that Russia should be defined as neither Europe nor Asia, but as Eurasia, provided a new identity for those who had lost their home country with the fall of the Russian Empire. The movement was initiated by a heterogeneous group of highly creative, recently traumatized Russian emigre linguists, ethnologists, geographers, and historians living in Prague, Vienna, Paris, Berlin and other major European cities. Rejected and then repressed by both Communism and Fascism, supporters of Eurasianism had little room for maneuver in Europe. But further east there was fertile ground for their ideas: Eurasianism became central to the evolution of the geopolitically motivated, multi-ethnic ideologies of the Japanese Empire. The Japanese interpretation of Eurasianism not only challenged "European" convictions of racial supremacy and hegemony, but also provided a new interpretation of "Asian" identity and hence an ideological basis to integrate the multi-ethnic residents of occupied territories into the Japanese empire. Meanwhile, the ideologues of Russian Turkism had developed the plan for the liberation of Turks in Central Asia from the Soviet Union and future autonomy under Japanese rule.
This paper compares the importance of Eurasianism and Russian Turkism in the Japanese Empire in the 1930s and 1940s. Whereas ethnic Russian and other Slavic emigres, resident in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (1931-1945), utilized Eurasianism to resist the concept of Pan-Asianism, Turkic Russian emigres were drawn to Pan-Asianism. Turkic Russians' relationship with Japan was different from that of European Russian emigres, because the Japanese largely considered the latter group to be white men, at least early on in their quest for a Pan-Asian utopia. While the Japanese exploited Russian Eurasianism in Manchukuo, they used Turkic Russians' nationalist sympathies to legitimize their political and geopolitical ambitions not only in Northeast Asia but also beyond Northeast Asia.
Paper short abstract:
This presentation analyzes Japanese impressions of World War I and perceptions of a future war during the 1920s in order to demonstrate their effect on the treatment of POWs in the final wars of Imperial Japan during the 1930s and 1940s.
Paper long abstract:
World War I was a watershed in Japan's treatment of its POWs, Western/European POWs in particular. During the Russo-Japanese War and World War I, Japanese treatment of POWs was relatively benevolent and the prisoners' mortality rate was low. During the wars in which Japan took part in later years, that is the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-45) and the Pacific War (1941-45), Japan's treatment of it POWs deteriorated substantially while their mortality rate soared. In this presentation, I argue that the reports of Japanese observers during World War I and the subsequent expectations of a future total war in which Japan would be involved, changed radically the view of human resources and affected the ensuing treatment of enemy soldiers. During the interwar era, the local customs in regard to POWs became gradually stricter, and from the late 1920s adherence to international conventions became steadily weaker, thereby enfeebling the moral pressure of the Geneva Convention. It is no wonder than, that in 1929 the Japanese government was reluctant to adopt the Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, on the grounds that it contradicted Japanese law.
Paper short abstract:
Though the end of WWI is generally regarded as a turning point signifying the replacing of imperialistic values and practices by internationalism, the history of the Siberian Intervention reflected profound disagreements within Japan's ruling elite regarding the future course of foreign politics.
Paper long abstract:
The end of World War I is generally regarded as a turning point signifying the replacing of imperialistic values and practices by Wilsonian internationalism. As I will argue in this presentation, the question is more complicated that such generalizations suggest. In fact, the history of Japan's interference in the Russian Civil War, known as the Siberian Intervention (1918-22), reflected profound disagreements between those Japanese policy-makers who embraced Wilsonianism and those who continued to adhere to traditional imperialist practices. Even after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of the League of Nations, the imperialists' influence ensured that Japan continued to strengthen its position in China and that an attempt was made to add Eastern Siberia to its informal empire. Japan, under the pretext of a "humanitarian intervention," drew upon the established methods of pre-World War I imperialism to economically control vast and resource-rich Siberia in contradiction of the new Wilsonian principles.