Supply Drops for Prisoners of War

The Japanese emperor’s famous surrender announcement came at noon on August 15th, 1945. However, for Korea (and Manchuria) the date is of limited use, despite its symbolic importance today. Japanese troops did not formally surrender on the ground in the southern half of Korea until the 9th of September. August 15th also did not bring the immediate release of prisoners of war held in Japanese camps in Korea. There is, however, plenty of mention of them in US military documents from this early transition period. Before the prisoners were liberated, indeed, before US soldiers had landed in Korea, the US military began to drop food and supplies on the camps. The drops were important for morale, but also apparently reached the prisoners of war in large enough quantities that when medical inspectors evaluated the condition of the prisoners, they had difficulties in estimating the wartime nutritional conditions in the camps. Though they suffered from all manner of diseases and conditions were horrible in some camps, most prisoners (it is important to note that the only prisoners mentioned in the documents I have looked at so far are Western prisoners) had gained as much as 20 pounds from a recent deluge of supply drops and Red Cross packages and the special medical unit brought for their benefit was judged as unnecessary.

There is another more problematic side to these supply drops – delivered by air at a time when hostilities had already ended. In the official military History of the United States Armed Forces in Korea covering the period roughly up to the Korean War, we find this telling passage:

“The B-29s came in at a low altitude. Many of the parachutes to which [sic] from 30 to 50 percent of the supplies were unusable, and the fast-falling packages did a certain amount of damage. At Seoul they killed a Korean woman. At Inch’on they crashed through the roof of the prisoners’ hospital, broke the leg of one of the prisoners, killed one Korean, and injured eight Japanese. In spite of these serious mishaps, the prisoners benefited greatly in body and mind from the flights and from the supplies that were salvaged. The morale effect of the planes was tremendous.”1

In addition to killing people with falling supplies and the huge waste involved in these drops, they also created tensions with Russian troops in some areas, as in the case of the drops around one camp:

“The story of the drops made over the camp at Konan is more involved. When the first drops were made, at about the same time as the drops over the Seoul and Inch’on camps, Russian troops were in the area. Some of the packages hit a building occupied by Red Army troops and narrowly missed a colonel, as the Russians later explained. This occurence brought an order from the local Russian commander that any planes that might come over in the future to drop supplies should be intercepted and made to land before delivering their cargo, in order to avoid any more accidents.”2

The story doesn’t end there. Later a B-29 tried to drop more supplies in the area and four Russian fighter planes tried to get the bomber to land on an airfield far too small for its size. The bomber tried to fly back without dropping anything, but the Russians fired on the plane as it went out to sea (the military historian speculates that they thought the plane was Japanese with Allied markings). 6 of the crew bailed up, to be picked up by Korean fishermen, while the other 7 crash landed the plane and were picked up by the Russians, with whom they made amends. Not knowing what to do with the soldiers, they delivered them to the prison camp where they stayed, after delivering the plane’s supplies by hand…

1. 駐韓美軍史 (HUSAFIK History of the United States Armed Forces in Korea) published by 돌베개, p344
2. ibid

A Break With Tradition

I’m going to break with Frog In A Well tradition this once, and comment here on something that has almost nothing to do with Asian history. I could easily make comparisons and connections, mind you, but my focus is not on that at the moment. I am also going to be somewhat less restrained than usual.

It has been pretty widely reported, at this point, that a warehouse associated with The Holocaust History Project (THHP) was deliberately firebombed a few days ago. This is just the latest, if you’ll pardon the term, salvo in a pattern of harassment towards THHP and its supporters which includes cyber-attacks via virus/worm/zombie and personal harassment and cyberstalking.

Orac has organized a bloggerly response to this: linking to THHP in a mass show of support. I think that’s great, obviously, but I feel increasingly, since I heard about this event, that it’s not enough.

This was perpetrated by an organized group, with high levels of technical skill and the intent to do harm. That the result was only “property” damage ignores the fact that the attack was clearly intended to deprive THHP of vital resources — economic and archival — and to terrorize THHP supporters into abandoning their educational mission. Educational mission: just like my own educational mission, just like the educational mission of many of my readers. This attack is an attack on all clear-thinking, fair-minded scholars and teachers.

I want to ask a question, and I want other bloggers to ask this question, and I want newspapers to ask this question, and I want politicians to ask this question, until we have a very, very good answer: Where is the FBI, Homeland Security, national media?

Why is this not being treated as a terrorist event?

I know, as Dave Neiwert points out that there’s no direct evidence yet. But shouldn’t the presumption be in favor of a vigorous response?

Fuji Kawashima, 1938-2006

The Korean Studies mailing list has been full of people’s recollections of the the Koreanist Fuji Kawashima of Bowling Green State University, who died recently. If you are not on the list and want to read what people are saying you can look here. There is also an obituary here.

I did not know this important scholar or his work on the yangban society of Chosŏn, so I thought that for readers of Frog in a Well the most useful way to remember him might be to provide a list of some of his publications in English (taken from the Korean History Bibliography compiled by the Centre for Korean Studies at the University of Hawai’i):
Continue reading →

Symposium Commemorating the Completion of the Occupation Period Magazine Article Database

The Prange Archive online magazine article database for the occupation period was an absolutely essential tool for me in my most recent research project. If you are in Tokyo in April, you might want to attend some of these great looking talks, which includes a speech discussing the database by the project’s founder, 山本武利, and one panel with 鶴見俊輔 as commentator:

■占領期雑誌記事情報データベース完成記念 講演会・シンポジウム■
    ——占領期の雑誌メディアをひらく——

主催:20世紀メディア研究所/早稲田大学現代政治経済研究所
日時:2006年4月9日(日曜日)午前10時〜午後5時40分
場所:早稲田大学国際会議場
参加費:無料

      司会:土屋礼子(大阪市立大学教授)
・午前10時〜午前12時
研究報告
 原田健一(東洋大学講師)綴方と映画——山本嘉次郎の試み
 三澤真美恵(日本大学文理学部教員)台湾総督府の映画統制:1942−1945年

・午後1時00分〜午後1時20分
 講演:山本武利(早稲田大学政治経済学術院教授)占領期雑誌記事情報データベースの性格

・午後1時30分〜午後2時50分
 記念講演:鶴見俊輔
      若き哲学者の占領期雑誌ジャーナリズム活動

・午後3時〜午後5時30分
 シンポジウム:占領期雑誌の諸相
   司会:谷川建司(早稲田大学政治学研究科助教授)
 基調報告
 川崎賢子(文芸評論家、早稲田大学講師):
   占領期雑誌に読む「大衆」概念の変容と文芸ジャンルの再編
 コメンテーター 鶴見俊輔
 パネラー
  十重田裕一(早稲田大学文学学術院教授):川端康成作品への検閲
  梅森直之(早稲田大学政治経済学術院教授):右翼雑誌のGHQへの抵抗活動
  加藤敬子(関西学院大学講師):婦人雑誌における生活情報
  吉田則昭(立教大学社会学部・創価大学文学部講師):
    占領期雑誌にみるソビエト文化の受容について

・午後5時30分〜40分
  閉会にあたって:福島鋳郎(日本出版学会員)戦後雑誌蒐集の動機と当時の出版事情

*午前中の研究報告は、20世紀メディア研究所の4月の月例研究会を兼ねます。
*詳細は、20世紀メディア研究所ホームページhttp://www8.ocn.ne.jp/~m20th/をご覧ください。
*会場の定員は96名ですので、当日は、早めにお出かけください。参加予約の受け付けはいたしません。

思想なき追憶はどこへ行くのか 「大和ミュージアム」の感想

 はじめまして。

 この度「井の中の蛙」に参加させていただくことになりました佐々木啓(Kei SASAKI)と申します。
 日本の埼玉県(Saitama Prefecture)というところに住んでおります。

 現在早稲田大学大学院文学研究科博士後期課程に在籍し、日本近現代史、特に戦時期における労働力動員、徴用制度について研究しております。徴用のほかに関心を持っているテーマは、労働にまつわるイデオロギー、労働運動、社会運動、社会政策、兵役、総力戦体制、「銃後」の文化・社会秩序、「病人」の歴史などなどです。

 ここに参加することになったのは、今年の1月に僕のホームページをご覧になったLawsonさんからお誘いのメールを頂いたことに端を発します。来日中のLawsonさんに実際にお会いして色々とお話をうかがってみて、インターネット上で歴史研究に関する国境を越えた交流ができるということに大きな魅力を感じ、参加させていただくことにしました。以後、よろしくお願いいたします。

 なお、「日本人参加者にはぜひ日本語で記事を書いてもらいたい」というふうに言っていただいているので、お言葉に甘えて日本語で書かせていただきたいと思います。もちろん英語で頂いたコメントには英語で答える所存です(がんばります)。

 さて、以下本題です。

 2月末に広島県に徴用関係の資料調査のため出かけてきたのですが、そのついでに同県呉市にある大和ミュージアム(Yamato Museum)を観てきたので、その簡単な紹介と感想を述べたいと思います。

 大和ミュージアムとは、別名「呉市海事歴史科学館」(The Kure Maritime Museum)といって、近代日本において代表的な軍港として栄えた呉市の運営する博物館です(2005年4月に開館)。この博物館は、呉の歴史や科学技術について展示、紹介するのが基本なのですが、目玉の展示物は、なんといってもアジア・太平洋戦争中世界最大の戦艦と呼ばれた「大和」の模型です(全長23メートルぐらい、実物の10分の1の大きさ)。 

 この博物館の名称にもなっている戦艦「大和」は、1937年11月から41年12月にかけて呉海軍工廠で製造された戦艦で、当時日本の科学技術の粋を集めたものと謳われていました。しかし、戦線の後退の中で結局「大和」はその“真価”を発揮することのないまま、45年4月、沖縄への特攻作戦の途上で米軍機動部隊艦載機の攻撃で多くの乗組員と共に沈没しました。

 片道分の燃料しか積まず、“愛する人々のため”に「一億特攻のさきがけ」として沈没したこの戦艦について、強い思い入れを抱いている日本人も多く、しばしば「大和」は“悲劇の戦艦”として、一種のセンチメンタリズム、ロマンチシズムと共に顧みられたりします。

 これに加えて昨年公開された映画「男たちの大和」の影響もあって、大和ミュージアムは順調に客足を伸ばしつづけ、昨年11月の段階ですでに100万人の来館者を迎えたそうです。僕が行ったのは平日の昼間だったのですが、それでも多くの来館者にあふれ、記念グッズ売り場は長蛇の列と化しておりました。

 問題は、いま、この「大和」をどう語るのかというところにあります。

 大和ミュージアムでは、沖縄特攻に参加した戦艦「大和」の乗組員たちの写真や名簿、遺書や手紙が紹介されています。家族への思いや死を前にした悲壮な感慨を綴る手紙などは、やはりなかなか心をうつもので、戦争の悲惨さ、平和の尊さを伝えるためには効果を発するものと言えます。ズラーっと並べられた若い乗組員たちの写真を見ても、なぜこんなに沢山の未来ある若者が死なねばならなかったのかと、その理不尽さをしみじみと思います。

 しかし、こうした「なぜ」に答える展示は、実はこのミュージアムにはありません。
 戦争は自然に起こるものではなく、誰かの手によってはじめられなければならないことは言うまでもありませんが、「大和」が戦った戦争が、なぜ、何のために、どのようにして、誰の手によって始まったのか、という問題はここでは不問に付されたままです。

 大和ミュージアムは「我が国の歴史と平和の大切さを認識していただく」ことをその趣旨として掲げております(同ホームページ)。たしかに展示から「戦争の悲惨さ」は分かりますので、転じて「平和の大切さ」を知ることもできるかもしれません。しかし、そうした戦争が起こるに至った経緯や仕組み、考え方の誤り、「大和」の乗組員を死に至らしめた国家や社会、人々のあり方を問わないまま獲得される「平和の大切さ」というのは、一体どれほどの意味があるのでしょうか? 「平和」を大切にしたいのであれば、どのようにして「平和」が脅かされ、戦争に至ったのか、その経験をこそしっかりとつかむべきだと思うのですが。

 大和ミュージアムの展示全体としては、1880年代に呉に鎮守府や海軍工廠が設置されるところから時系列的に並べられていきます。海軍整備の時代から、技術修得の時代(~日清日露戦争期)を経て、生産と管理の合理化(大正~昭和初期)が進み、「大和」が作られ、「太平洋戦争」へと進み、戦後「平和産業港湾都市」として再生されていく様子までが追われます。

 その時々の市民生活の様子なども紹介されていますが、全体としては科学技術の発展が基軸となって展示全体が構成されていることが分かります。戦前戦中と海軍工廠において培かわれた科学技術は、いまの時代にも受け継がれているということが強調されるわけです。

 大和についても、その「悲劇」性についての紹介に加えて、「国力面におけるアメリカ側の“量”的優位に対し、日本が“質”で対抗しようとした艦であり、当時の最新技術の結晶と言えるものでした。その技術は日本の復興と高度成長を支え現代にも受け継がれています」(『常設展示図録』)とまとめられています。

 科学技術の発展の足跡を振り返るのはいいのですが、しかし、殺戮兵器を造ってきたことに対する後ろめたさみたいなものはもう少しあっても良いのではないでしょうか。軍需産業が日本の重工業の近代化を推し進めたり、科学技術の発展と結びついたというのは正しい把握だと思いますし、それが現代の技術の基盤となっているのもそうなんだろうと思うわけですが、それだけの説明に終ってしまって本当に良いのかどうか。

 問題は、平和的に友好的に使えば素晴らしい成果をもたらしてくれるはずの科学技術というものが、他国の人々を殺戮するために利用されたという事実そのものではないかと思います。戦争の評価を抜きにして、科学技術の歴史を振り返るなら、それは確かに進歩と発展の歴史となるでしょう。しかし、それで「平和の大切さ」をつかむことができるのかどうか、どうにも疑わしいと思います。

 さて、ダラダラと長い文章を書いてしまいましたが、そろそろまとめます。

 結局のところ、大和ミュージアムの展示には大事な部分での「思想」がないと思うのです。「大和」の悲劇、戦前戦中の科学技術の高度さ、これを表現すること自体が悪いとは言いません。問題は、日本が行ってきたところの種々の戦争の評価を避けているがゆえに、情緒的ではあるが、論理的ではない歴史展示になってしまっていることです。「大和」の悲劇について、なぜそれが起こったのかという説明をするために必要な展示がここにはなく、呉の科学技術について、それがもたらしてしまった加害の問題がここではすっぽりと抜け落ちています。ただただ無条件の追憶とも言える情感だけが浮遊しているように見えます。

 歴史を語る上で肝要な部分の評価を不問に付した追憶は、一体どこに向かうのでしょうか。
 しかし、こういう思想抜きの歴史は、すぐに壁に突き当たるはずです。

 例えば外国の方からは、おそらく次のような批判が出るでしょう。「侵略された側の視点も取り入れるべきだ」、「日本人の被害や苦しみばかり描いて、侵略戦争を推進した責任についてはまったく触れていないのは問題だ」などなど。日本が実際に遂行した戦争そのものの評価を放棄したこのミュージアムは、そうした批判にどう答えるのでしょうか。

The Case of Taiwa Shinron

In addition to preparing for my oral exams, the most significant project I have been working on recently involves research on the early US occupation period in Japan and especially the postwar fate of Japan’s pan-Asianism. The sources I have looked at so far are almost exclusively early occupation period magazines and journals, all of which were under censorship by SCAP authorities. Despite the obstacles that a system of censorship poses for a research project like this, I found what I believe to be some interesting discoveries.

1) Wartime language, symbols, and stock phrases almost completely disappear in the early postwar publications of Japan, including those calling for political, economic, and spiritual union with Asia.

2) A significant number of intellectuals who supported Japanese imperialism and pushed for pan-Asian unity during the war, both from the “left” and the “right” join together with many old-fashioned “liberal” internationalists whose voices largely drop out during wartime to support a brief but significant movement supporting world federalism. In other words, a broader transnational idealism persists into the early postwar period and is at its strongest up until the outbreak of the Korean war.

The second of these two is where I think I have something important and original to say and I will try to make time to post more about my research in this area here at some future point. The first of these, however, you might call my, “Duh!” thesis. It seems fairly obvious that in the aftermath of war, with the wartime regime fallen into almost universal disrepute, with US propaganda and occupation censorship in full swing, and with the left at its most powerful in decades, wartime language and symbols are not going to be in vogue. By making use of the wonderful Prange collection of occupation period magazines, complete with US censorship documents and the actual censors comments and markings on the original submissions, I can confirm that whether due to self-censorship or some other reason – there are few articles which even try to submit something using any of the familiar wartime expressions.

However, there is at least one very interesting exception to this that I came across which, after much feedback, I have decided to drop completely from my writing on this topic. This is the case of an obscure Ibaraki prefecture publication that goes by the name of Taiwa Shinron (大和新論)and it is interesting to me because, while it is quite representative of the kind of early postwar global-oriented “transnational idealism” I have found to be so strong at the time, it continued to use the now discredited idiom of Japan’s wartime empire.
Continue reading →

The use “chunghung”

Does anyone have any thought or evidence on whether the use of chunghung (restoration/renovation/rejuvenation) during the Park Chung Hee years was generic or deliberate in an historicized way?

I refer specifically to the evocation of the term in the slogan “minjok chunghung” (national restoration) and the use in “munye chunghung (culture and art renovation) 5 year plan.”

I am wondering if it is possible to consider whether the use of the term chunghung was purposefully designed to evoke its deep Chinese/Confucian connection. Mary Wright’s book on the T’ung Chih Restoration (The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism) provides a good chapter on the term’s significance in Chinese dynastic history. Andre Schmid’s Korea Between Empires has two mentions of the use of chunghung to refer to Kojong’s efforts with the Taehan jeguk (Kojong chunghung?). Bruce Cumings mentioned in a manuscript review that minjok chunghung was a term that has colonial origins (although by who and in what source I am not sure).

In an earlier brief discussion on the Korean Studies Discussion List on the term “yusin,” Prof. Ledyard talked about the Chinese/Confucian roots of that term and speculated that Park Chung Hee was very possibly aware and deliberately used the term with that connection in mind. Vladimir Tikhonov in the same discussion speculated that Park’s educational advisor Park Chong-hong would have known that historical significance and would have been in a position to advise PCH and that the evocation of the term/concept embedded in Chinese imperial ideology was “hardly accidental.”

I wonder if we can make a similar inference about chunghung. Better yet, does anyone have any evidence that can take us beyond speculation.

Jiyul Kim

Asian History Carnival Coming Soon!

I will be hosting the third edition of the Asian History Carnival on Sunday, March 5. Deadline for nominations of posts — anything about Asian history written since the last edition in mid-December — is Saturday, March 4th.

You can send nominations to me (jonathan at froginawell dot net) or use the handy Blog Carnival Submission Form.

Spread the word!

Asian History Carnival Coming Soon!

I will be hosting the third edition of the Asian History Carnival on Sunday, March 5. Deadline for nominations of posts — anything about Asian history written since the last edition in mid-December — is Saturday, March 4th.

You can send nominations to me (jonathan at froginawell dot net) or use the handy Blog Carnival Submission Form.

Spread the word!

New version of Yorha Ilgi discovered

It’s always exciting when something new and exciting is discovered getting dusty in a forgotten corner of a library somewhere. This time it’s an early nineteenth century version of Pak Chi-won’s (朴趾源) Yorha Ilgi (熱河日記), a travelogue of the writer’s journey to Beijing in 1780, when he accompanied his older brother on a diplomatic mission. What makes this different is that it’s written in vernacular Korean. In other words, it’s a very early translation of the original text written in literary Chinese. In fact it’s the only complete translation of the text found to date. According to the Korea Times it was discovered in the library of Tokyo University by a Seoul National University professor. We have a few of these han’gŭl manuscripts at SOAS, mostly very well-thumbed late nineteenth-century novels, but could there be a lost treasure among them?

Mastodon