The United States and the Japanese Student Movement, 1948–1973: Managing a Free World by Naoko Koda (review)

Abstract

Another factor that taints the image of Japanese internees is that after being taken into detention, many embraced communism. They did so in response to a Soviet reeducation campaign within the camps known as the Democratic Movement. Those internees who participated most enthusiastically were known as aktiv members. As well as assisting Soviet propaganda efforts, including a Japanese-language newspaper called Nihon Shinbun, these aktiv members spied on fellow Japanese inmates. Most internees quickly abandoned communism when freed from Soviet control, yet around 10 percent remained committed even after their return to Japan. Muminov explains that “these militant repatriates caused successive disturbances at the port of Maizuru, train stations and city squares, singing the communist ‘Internationale’ and, upon arriving in Tokyo, marching to JCP [Japanese Communist Party] headquarters to collectively join the party” (p. 23). Throughout the book, Muminov portrays the Japanese internees not as a homogenous mass but as real individuals, complete with their distinct experiences and specific weaknesses. He does not present them as saints, yet he remains sympathetic to their plight. This is notable in the final chapter when Muminov explores the internees’ often disparate lives after returning to Japan. This homecoming took place for many in 1949, when most ordinary internees were marked for release, but the last 1,025 were not repatriated until 26 December 1956. Many returnees did not find life easy. Some Japanese saw them as unwelcome reminders of an imperial Japan that they were working hard to forget. Others feared them as Soviet fifth columnists. Although some former internees, such as Sejima Ryūzō, prospered as architects of Japan’s postwar economic miracle, others endured prolonged hardship. One example was Itō Sadao. After years of struggling with work because of pain caused by frostbite, this former internee lit himself on fire, dying in his backyard in 1979 (p. 275). Straightforward tales of victims and perpetrators, good and evil, are convenient for nationalist politicians who seek to use history for their own purposes. For historians, however, nuance and multiple perspectives are needed. This well-researched and articulately written text may frustrate the former, but it should be warmly welcomed by the latter.